This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have grave reservations about (and have mostly been reverting) a lot of the edits Lightbot has made to articles on my watchlist. I haven't reviewed any of its other edits, and it may be that in other areas, it is performing useful tasks. Take this edit for example. There are a lot of places where it changes "2,000 feet" to "{{convert|2000|ft|m}}" which renders to "2,000 feet (610 m)". This is sometimes useful, for example, on the first occasion that the height "2,000 feet" is mentioned. But it gets tedious if it is repeated every time the height is mentioned. In the case of that edit, the article already had metric equivalent the first time, and all of the additional ones added by Lightbot simply added unnecessary verbiage to the article.
In the same edit, it deletes a whole bunch of blank lines in the markup for the tables. These lines do not affect the HTML generated, far less the rendering. So why make the changes? In an article with over 2000 lines of markup, the vast majority in wiki table syntax, the blank lines make it much easier for a human to edit the tables manually, and to locate sections. When it has no noticeable affect on anything, how about leaving it to the editors who actually maintain the article how they want the source laid out?
— ras52 ( talk) 23:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The bot does janitorial edits mainly to unit and dates. The example given (List of Hewitts and Nuttalls in England) has three occasions where the unit value "2,000 feet" feet is repeated (one with a conversion, two without). The bot added two unit conversions. If repetition of units is an issue, perhaps the repetition of non-metric units could be worthy of reduction. Perhaps two conversions is not a 'lot' but I understand what you mean. I do not mind your revert at all. The removal of spaces is a janitorial edit that is a feature of AWB 'General fixes'. Even if I did not do it, somebody else probably would. The place to question AWB features that are widely used is at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. Lightmouse ( talk) 00:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
To reiterate my comment above, bots that make textual changes don't work, because they change stuff that shouldn't be changed. You can see two examples above: changing direct quotes, and changing titles. The Wikipedia community has been over this heaps of times before, and I guarantee you this behaviour would never have been approved. I have blocked your bot for now. Once you've clarified what it is your bot is approved to do, I have no objection to it being unblocked. I'll leave a message at WT:BOT too. Hesperian 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Despite having raised 3 problems with it today, can I just pause to thank you for work on Lightbot and to appreciate the changes it makes (usually!). I mostly work on historical engineering articles and although I'm not obsessive about metricating everything, I do appreciate a post-Lightbot page where capitalisation and spacing of units has been made consistent.
If we can find a lightweight way to exclude bot-tweaking from sections of pages, and to apply this restraint by default within links and quotes, then I'll be a happy bunny (well, less of a miserable git than usual). Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
See this edit which converted a good link into a red one. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 05:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I see you're pretty much on it - but Lightbot also had a crack at QF 4.5 inch naval gun, here (well, this is the reversion of it, the rest of the work was all ok). Just letting y'know, y'know? -- RedHillian ( talk) 13:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. You may wish to look at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Improve_HideText.HideMore.28.29. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Generic issue moved to: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Banning_metric_units. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 15:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Lightbot appears to have left a long string of error messages in this article because of an apparently inability to interpret the article's expression of the common 42-inch Cape gauge and the less common 30-inch and 54-inch gauges. The remainder of the gauge conversions appear to have been successful. Can you clean up this article? Thewellman ( talk) 17:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That was me - seemed like the simplest solution :) Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Twice in recent days, first at Tahlee [1] and then at Australian Agricultural Company [2], Lightbot changed, of all things, a book title in the references from A Million Pounds, A Million acres to A Million Pounds, A Million acres (4,000 km²). This is an inappropriate change. I've reverted both errors. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 00:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A similar problem at Barnwood House Hospital - two conversions were added to quoted text. Since the quotes were historic, and given the context, I don't think metric readers will be alienated. Staug73 ( talk) 17:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I just found this error where Lightbot has added a conversion within an image tag. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 13:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
We had earlier been trying to settle on wording to use for a guideline governing the unit symbol to use for the liter. There is now a vote, here at Straw poll on unit symbol usage for the liter to settle on just what it is we hope to accomplish with any guideline’s wording. I hope to see you there. Greg L ( talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I see you've been replacing the customised {{ RailGauge}} template with the {{ convert}} template, for example here. As the convert template requires more parameters to obtain the same result, can you explain why you believe it is necessary to do this please? — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 17:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The RailGauge template was developed to replace a number of individual templates for each gauge, bringing consistency throughout. If you have any problems with it, I suggest you discuss it at the template's talk page, rather than wholesale replacement. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 07:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, It's just plain wrong for bots to even try changing input parameters to templates they're not deliberately coded to manipulate. Nor should a generic 'bot like this go near such a specific template like {{ RailGauge}}. What would happen if {{ RailGauge}} was also auto-categorizing pages into "2' gauge railway lines"? Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
'bots should be cautious. If they're not deliberately setting out to modify anything that's passed to a "sensitive" piece of code (quotation, wikilink, external link, template, parameter to a template, parser function or (&deity; preserve us) a call to DPL) then they should keep their robotic little paws well away! There's enough body text out there to keep them busy.
Secondly, a "topic specific" template like {{ RailGauge}} may easily have behaviours above and beyond those of a more generic {{ convert}} template. 'bots can't be expected to know just what, so again they should keep away. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this bot is supposed to do. I reverted part of its edit to I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles) because it changed a quotation of the song lyrics, which is clearly wrong. It unlinked some other dates which I guess is what it's supposed to do, so I didn't touch that part. -- Weeble ( talk) 13:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI, in Ingleton, North Yorkshire your bot made a conversion inside the name of an external link. ( the last edit here) It shouldn't do that! -- Dr Greg ( talk) 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lightmouse. I was pointed to your script by Tony, and I have it transcluded in my monobook. I was wondering if you knew whether it was compatable with User:Brighterorange/punctuation.js I had that installed already, and it too creates an extra tab on the edit screen, but it always seemed to override your script. Can the two work side by side in any way, or would both scripts have to be copy/pasted into one script in order for them to run. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. Matthew Edwards ( talk • contribs • email) 22:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have another question about actually using the script. When I click on the [delink iso] tab the article reloads to the "Current revision"/"Your text" page, and has a little clicky button with a green triangle. I click on the button to show the improved diff view, and nothing happens. Just a box with a long horizontal grey line through it. When I click "save page", it just goes back to the article page without having made any changes. When I click on the history, it's not even as if I made a WP:DUMMY edit. There is simply no history of any change I made. Is something wrong with how I'm doing it? This has happened on every article I've attempted it on. Matthew Edwards ( talk • contribs • email) 09:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I tested it there and the same thing happened, except that I saw this:
"18 suggestions: year linkfix date formatfix year linkfix year linkfix year linkfix year linkfix year linkfix year linkfix ..."
When I clicked on fix, it says "Changing text in wikEd is not yet supported." So I guess if I remove WikEd, everything should work?
Matthew Edwards (
talk •
contribs •
email)
23:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded Image:Matthewedwards Editing.JPG, which shows what tabs I have. After discussing with User:Tony1, it appears I am missing an [all dates] tab. I am wondering if I don't have this because I have the extra delete/protect admin tabs? Any help you can give regarding this is appreciated. Matthew Edwards ( talk • contribs • email) 06:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Any idea on when your bot will be running again? I've got a job for it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate you going through some of the aircraft articles to provide altitude and speed conversions etc; however, if possible, could you please avoid changing the power-weight conversion figures? The weights are expressed in lb and Kg while the power is expressed in units of hp-kW hence the power to weight ratios should also be expressed as kW/kg, it can be confusing to express it as Watts/kg which differs by a factor of 1,000. Thanks, Minorhistorian ( talk) 00:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar | ||
For tireless work fixing units, dates and useless wikilinks, especially in aircraft articles. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you very much. Lightmouse ( talk) 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate it. I am not too worried about the bot. I live in hope of getting permission again. Lightmouse ( talk) 11:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I hadn't realised your bot was still blocked. I'll discuss it with the admin who blocked it, but as I see it, the problems occurred when you tried to add {{ convert}} to existing articles. If you can remove this functionality from the bot (which wasn't part of the original functionality), and assuming User:Hesperian agrees, I'll happily unblock it. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
You just added Category:Living people to the article which isn't really right, might need to tweak your script - SimonLyall ( talk) 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Howdy, Lightmouse. This topic is still not resolved. Your script(s) use ft·lbf as the English torque unit, which may not be the best choice for the automotive articles. Kindly please take a look here. Thanks! — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi lightmouse,
The problem that I see, is that at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot you described the function details as one set of things and you did start doing things that way in the first few days after the bot was approved, but then at some point, without approval, you added some more tasks and started to have the bot do raw unit conversions and de-linking of units. Thus, making changes to the visible text and dramatically increasing the false positives (as was pointed out at Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Request_for_corporate_memory_on_common_bot_screwups).
At this point, just unblocking it would be stepping on the toes of the blocking admin—Hesperian. My suggestion is that you get together with Hesperian and explain/reassure him that you will be abandoning the old approved and unapproved tasks that lightbot was running. Then create a "new task" for the swapping of the codes for {{convert}}
(mi2-->sqmi, etc) so that that task and only that task can be approved. If that goes well then maybe you can get additional tasks approved later. When you ask for a task approval, be very specific and after approval do only what you've asked for. Good luck. —
MJCdetroit
(yak)
18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to add that Hesperian might be reassured by my observations that Lightmouse conducted the running of the bot with sensitivity and politeness, and systematically gathered data WRT its functions and users' reactions. He appeared to be regularly responding to feedback by modifying the script. This is bot-management at its best, IMO. Tony (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate it. Lightmouse ( talk) 10:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you can't do it without adding a bunch of fancy template code (e.g. <noinclude></noinclude>
s) to the page you're transcluding.
JIMp
talk·
cont
15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What a mouthfull that is-anyway, Lightmouse, is there any way that I can prevent the insertion of these templates in articles that I work on? I have reverted already on one article and I noticed a quicker page load time. Not everyone has high speed internet, some are still in dinosaur-dial-up mode. Please respond here on your talk page for easier reading. Sincerely Marcia Wright ( talk) 06:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the metrication script left something odd on a page I edited:
Desert Rock Airport covers 100 acres (0 km²) and has one runway:
The script converted what's in the parentheses from hectares (40) to square kilometers (0), which wouldn't have been a problem if the area figure were larger, but apparently the script felt no digits beyond zero were significant. Michael Patrick ( talk) 20:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lightmouse, would it be possible to set your script to use lk=in when you replace a linked unit with the convert template? e.g. Here you replaced
17 nautical miles
with
{{convert|17|nmi|km}}
thereby discarding a link that would have been retained if you had instead used
{{convert|17|nmi|km|lk=in}}
Hesperian 23:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought "nautical miles" qualified as a plain English word, but it's no problem if you disagree. Carry on as you were rather than let this hold you up. Hesperian 12:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice you mention some 'handy tabs' for use when editing. Do tell what these things do, they might help me!-- Editor510 drop us a line, mate 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. – Quadell ( talk) 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we not linking dates anymore? I didnt get the memo... Qb | your 2 cents 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I was curious as to the reasoning behind this edit, specifically the change of [[Austria|Austrian]] to [[Austria]]n, as well as the same for Brazilian. It seems to be a bit of a silly change if both methods do the exact same thing. The359 ( talk) 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, your bot recently made this edit, which delinked several years e.g. [[1875 in association football|1875]]. I thought per WP:CONTEXT#Dates, linking standalone years to relevant topic articles was perfectly acceptable? cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 12:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been assuming that piped year-links are untouched by the bot. Tony (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether one tab can treat all including the piped year-links, and another everything but. I envisage lots of annoyed comments on my talk page if I remove piped linkes. Tony (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The 'part dates' tab was created to eliminate all date fragments, including 'year in blah'. That included camouflaged links. At the request of Tony, I took 'year in blah' out but it is still included in the 'all dates'. See McDonnell Douglas MD-80. I think interest in piped links is just another a symptom of the obsession with date linking in general. If it really is important, I can move it out of 'all dates' too. Currently, I do not think it is really that important but I am open to debate. The problem is not significance of the link, it is camouflage. Incidentally, Rambling Man, do you use the script? Lightmouse ( talk) 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, on List of Birmingham City F.C. managers, conversion of {{ dts2}} to {{ dts}} has resulted in the list of dates now appearing in US (month-first) format rather than the appropriate international (day-first) format. cheers, Struway2 ( talk)
I reverted the edits on ALSSP as I had not capitulated yet (although I did fix the errors pointed out by User Have a Gorilla). The main issue I have is the conversions in Lassen National Forest size measurement. I believe that this is much easier to read:
Lassen National Forest is a 1.1 million-acre national forest located in northeastern California.
as opposed to this:
Lassen National Forest is a 1,100,000-acre (4,500 km2) national forest located in northeastern California.
with the metric units:
Lassen National Forest is a 1.1 million-acre (4,500 km2) national forest located in northeastern California.
The readability should not be reduced just to have conversions added to the article. Cheers, Marcia Wright ( talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I am NOT saying that metric units should be omitted, I AM saying that for your conversion/template to work, you had to write out this huge number (example #2), versus example #3, which has the metric units but not the long,
impossible-to-read numbers. I, also, appreciate it when reading something that includes standard as well as metric units. "American" has nothing to do with it. Regards,
Marcia Wright (
talk)
15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh Thankyou Yes! That is what I meant. Please correct this on the discussion you just opened and thankyou for the kind words as well.
Looking forward to future collaborations with you. Marcia Wright ( talk) 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Please keep Lightbot from making pointless edits such as this in order to replace "knot" with "kn" in {{ convert}}. As you are aware, there has been considerable reaction in the past against your replacement of the unambiguous, yet still completely functional "knot", by the less-intuitive "kn" in Lightbot weeps. As it stands today, there is no consensus for changing "knot" to "kn" within uses of Template:Convert. — Bellhalla ( talk) 22:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Your bot is replacing knot with kn again. This is unhelpful. Please stop it.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 04:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The template code is getting very complicated with lots of variants that are not visible to the reader. It is being simplified to use an abbreviation at no cost to the reader. I do not know how much a French kilometre differs from a standard kilometre, and which articles use it. Can you give an example and I will take a look? Thanks Lightmouse ( talk) 08:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that iWCR is less explicit than iNumberOfWidgetsRemaining. I also agree with you that obtaining greater support is a good thing. I have never been accused of aggression and I am a disturbed that you think I have been. You may be unaware of how much I do respond to feedback, including your own. Can you give me a link to where you think I have been aggressive? The changes to the code options is a matter for stakeholders at Template talk:Convert not Lightmouse. It does not matter what we decide here, other editors will only change if the issue is discussed there. I suggest we move the discussion there. Lightmouse ( talk) 10:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I have submitted a stop request. Please do not start it again until its behavior is documented on its User page. -- Danorton ( talk) 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. What prompted me was the removal of a wikilinked "20th Century". I do not see where this behavior is documented. When you document it, it would be helpful to include a link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking.-- Danorton ( talk) 18:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not know what you mean. Can you tell me what you think is the problem? Lightmouse ( talk) 19:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The bot request said Unlinking date fragments .... It gave some examples. Lightmouse ( talk) 22:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I see the second bullet item of that link does indeed refer to removing links like 20th century. I cannot find where date framents includes 20th century. I also share Danorton's request that such behaviour be documented on the bot's user page. I just read the two approval requests and I could not see where it states that approval is given for changes resulting from Manual of Style guidelines. In fact I would be quite concerned if such approval exists. - 84user ( talk) 08:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that most people wouldn't have a problem with Lightbot were it better documented. The documentation that is there (actually referenced instead of being directly on the user page) is written for very experienced Wikipedians involved in the bot approval process. This bot is going to be making changes everywhere and it's typically going to be making corrections to novice edits. The documentation needs to be on the bot user page, it needs to be clear and complete (no regexs allowed) and for each type of change it makes, it needs to have a reference to the policy or guideline that it addresses. I suspect that new Wikipedians won't mind if they have an understanding of the purpose behind the edits, but as it is, this bot is going to stir up a lot of trouble without better documentation. With proper documentation it will help educate and inform new Wikipedians and help reduce the number of novice mistakes entered in the first place. There will be more annoyance than benefit unless you suspend the bot and don't restart it until it its behavior is thoroughly documented, especially targeting novice Wikipedians. -- Danorton ( talk) 13:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
sdsds, please can you be explicit about what you do not like and give example edits? Lightmouse ( talk) 10:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Lightmouse people keep telling you what they don't like when your bot edits articles. You listen; you respond; then a few weeks/months we find that you have been carrying on doing it just as if nobody had complained. All the things the bot does can be defended (just like everything else in life). Your bot does some useful things. It also annoys with pointless edits. Here are some examples:
Support a block. I wish a block could be put on your bot for the time being.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 12:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the supporting comment. With regard to 'pointless edits', I have never understood that criticism. Complaints are usually based on a belief that the article is made worse by an edit.
Can we enable or disable the bot User:Lightbot on a per Wikiproject basis? I can see some Wikiprojects would choose to request Lightbot "service" if you will, while other projects may prefer to handle those tasks manually. Apologies if this has been already discussed. - 84user ( talk) 08:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
As Lightbot makes changes stipulated by guidelines and not always by policies, it should be switchable. Even if it only made changes suggested by policy, I feel it should still be selectable. I note the following from Wikipedia Policies and guidelines:
Currently, Lightbot does not allow an editor to use human judgment and ignore the rules. This is a violation of the Ignore all rules pillar. Lightmouse, I generally like what you're doing, but you seem to be continually creating more work for yourself. You need to bend a little more, or Lightbot will end up with considerably more detractors than supporters. -- Danorton ( talk) 14:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
But it's a lil unhelpful...gimme a list of what it does.-- Editor510 drop us a line, mate 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Linking of units is not the issue: Lightbot's forceful editing is the issue. This discussion belongs here, not there. Please move it back or at least restore the original text so that this bot-specific discussion can continue here. -- Danorton ( talk) 14:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
When we say the Battle of Hastings took place 14 October 1066, we are using the Julian calendar then in effect, which differed from the present calendar, the Gregorian, by having leap years in every year ending in 00, not just some of them. The Julian calendar is, over time, perceptibly different from the actual tropical year: its year averages 365.25 days, not 365.242199; Pope Gregory (I forget which number) had a replacement devised in 1582 to (mostly) fix this.
If we project the Gregorian calendar backward in time, the difference from the Julian would change century by century. It is now 13 days; when Gregory first made it, the difference was 10 days; in 1066, it would be six days, so Hastings took place on October 20, 1066 (Gregorian). They agree for the third century; going back further, they diverge again the other way.
All of the customary dating formats are equally applicable to Julian or Gregorian dates; I did not know that ISO declared it was only Gregorian, but if ISO is concerned chiefly with dates after the standard is enacted, that makes sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I see you've been working on this. Might want to grab another function from my script. Some lines have a few false positive though. Gimmetrow 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I realize your script handles some of that elsewhere, but do you have anything that handles dates like the 26th of August? Gimmetrow 21:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
txt.value=txt.value.replace(/(\d(?:st|nd|rd|th)(?:\s|-))Century((?:\s|-)[^A-Z])/g, '$1century$2');
In any case, the incidence of unnecessary 'Century' capitalisation has gone right down too. Perhaps as a result of code like this. So it is hardly worthwhile anymore. There are quite a few things like that in my tabs that I need to migrate to the toolbox buttons.
I can be more brave with the code that I use with my AWB account, see User:Lightmouse/Lightbot/javascript conversion. Although I struggle to keep improvements and bug fixes in synch between monobook, Lightmouse AWB script and Lightbot AWB script. Lightmouse ( talk) 21:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
One little quirk on the units script: I ran it on Bodega, California, which features a link to bodegacalifornia.com. After I ran the script, " http://bo°california.com/" was how the URL read. It seems that "deg" automatically becomes a degree symbol, even when the letters are surrounded by other letters. Michael Patrick ( talk) 19:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I might have to go back to your version before it all went awry, and copy it across to my monobook until it's fixed. It was going so well ... :-) Tony (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Try now. The new code from Gimmetrow that allows us to switch between mdy and dmy is a major feature. We need that. Unfortunately it works in a different way and I don't understand it all. That is why we both have to be a little tolerant of downtime. It is frustrating for you but think how frustrating it might be for me too when I try to learn new code, merge old and new code, and add features without breaking the old ones. I have gone back a few versions and we will build it up again. Let me know if the mdy<->dmy switching works for you now. Lightmouse ( talk) 16:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Off to bed. Tony (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the birth–death one is particularly prevalent, like leprosy in biblical times. There are another few I've noticed. Do you want me to list them here as I come across them? Tony (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you removed the date-removing script from your monobook? Suddenly, the tabs do not appear in the edit mode for me. It is as your script is not transcluded in my monobook anymore. And it was working so well! Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 00:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks! — Mattisse ( Talk) 12:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; it appears to be working well, although I need to run it on more articles to see whether the "and" problem has gone. Earlier today, I reverted my monobook to one of your versions from 25 August, which worked OK, except that it was scrubbing "year in" pipes. Now I've gone back to the transcluded version, and yes, the q tab is there. Great. Tony (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Googling dates with inconsistent date formats: thanks. Once you get away from FAs, there's a much higher incidence of inconsistent formats—more than 50% I'd say. I only bother to point it out when it's a real mess. Even some of our most visited articles are in this category. Tony (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your script, it's brilliant. Quick question/feature request, though, would it be possible to ignore the article 4AD? It comes up quite often on band pages and such and is a bit annoying to fix, especially in discographies that list which label each album was released on. -- Closedmouth ( talk) 13:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the feedback. I fixed the '4AD' and '2000AD' issue once already but that was with an AWB script. I have fixed it with this script now. Let me know if it causes a problem. Feel free to use User:Lightmouse/wishlist. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 14:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have grave reservations about (and have mostly been reverting) a lot of the edits Lightbot has made to articles on my watchlist. I haven't reviewed any of its other edits, and it may be that in other areas, it is performing useful tasks. Take this edit for example. There are a lot of places where it changes "2,000 feet" to "{{convert|2000|ft|m}}" which renders to "2,000 feet (610 m)". This is sometimes useful, for example, on the first occasion that the height "2,000 feet" is mentioned. But it gets tedious if it is repeated every time the height is mentioned. In the case of that edit, the article already had metric equivalent the first time, and all of the additional ones added by Lightbot simply added unnecessary verbiage to the article.
In the same edit, it deletes a whole bunch of blank lines in the markup for the tables. These lines do not affect the HTML generated, far less the rendering. So why make the changes? In an article with over 2000 lines of markup, the vast majority in wiki table syntax, the blank lines make it much easier for a human to edit the tables manually, and to locate sections. When it has no noticeable affect on anything, how about leaving it to the editors who actually maintain the article how they want the source laid out?
— ras52 ( talk) 23:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The bot does janitorial edits mainly to unit and dates. The example given (List of Hewitts and Nuttalls in England) has three occasions where the unit value "2,000 feet" feet is repeated (one with a conversion, two without). The bot added two unit conversions. If repetition of units is an issue, perhaps the repetition of non-metric units could be worthy of reduction. Perhaps two conversions is not a 'lot' but I understand what you mean. I do not mind your revert at all. The removal of spaces is a janitorial edit that is a feature of AWB 'General fixes'. Even if I did not do it, somebody else probably would. The place to question AWB features that are widely used is at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. Lightmouse ( talk) 00:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
To reiterate my comment above, bots that make textual changes don't work, because they change stuff that shouldn't be changed. You can see two examples above: changing direct quotes, and changing titles. The Wikipedia community has been over this heaps of times before, and I guarantee you this behaviour would never have been approved. I have blocked your bot for now. Once you've clarified what it is your bot is approved to do, I have no objection to it being unblocked. I'll leave a message at WT:BOT too. Hesperian 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Despite having raised 3 problems with it today, can I just pause to thank you for work on Lightbot and to appreciate the changes it makes (usually!). I mostly work on historical engineering articles and although I'm not obsessive about metricating everything, I do appreciate a post-Lightbot page where capitalisation and spacing of units has been made consistent.
If we can find a lightweight way to exclude bot-tweaking from sections of pages, and to apply this restraint by default within links and quotes, then I'll be a happy bunny (well, less of a miserable git than usual). Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
See this edit which converted a good link into a red one. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 05:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I see you're pretty much on it - but Lightbot also had a crack at QF 4.5 inch naval gun, here (well, this is the reversion of it, the rest of the work was all ok). Just letting y'know, y'know? -- RedHillian ( talk) 13:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. You may wish to look at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Improve_HideText.HideMore.28.29. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Generic issue moved to: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Banning_metric_units. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 15:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Lightbot appears to have left a long string of error messages in this article because of an apparently inability to interpret the article's expression of the common 42-inch Cape gauge and the less common 30-inch and 54-inch gauges. The remainder of the gauge conversions appear to have been successful. Can you clean up this article? Thewellman ( talk) 17:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That was me - seemed like the simplest solution :) Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Twice in recent days, first at Tahlee [1] and then at Australian Agricultural Company [2], Lightbot changed, of all things, a book title in the references from A Million Pounds, A Million acres to A Million Pounds, A Million acres (4,000 km²). This is an inappropriate change. I've reverted both errors. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 00:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A similar problem at Barnwood House Hospital - two conversions were added to quoted text. Since the quotes were historic, and given the context, I don't think metric readers will be alienated. Staug73 ( talk) 17:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I just found this error where Lightbot has added a conversion within an image tag. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 13:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
We had earlier been trying to settle on wording to use for a guideline governing the unit symbol to use for the liter. There is now a vote, here at Straw poll on unit symbol usage for the liter to settle on just what it is we hope to accomplish with any guideline’s wording. I hope to see you there. Greg L ( talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I see you've been replacing the customised {{ RailGauge}} template with the {{ convert}} template, for example here. As the convert template requires more parameters to obtain the same result, can you explain why you believe it is necessary to do this please? — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 17:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The RailGauge template was developed to replace a number of individual templates for each gauge, bringing consistency throughout. If you have any problems with it, I suggest you discuss it at the template's talk page, rather than wholesale replacement. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 07:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, It's just plain wrong for bots to even try changing input parameters to templates they're not deliberately coded to manipulate. Nor should a generic 'bot like this go near such a specific template like {{ RailGauge}}. What would happen if {{ RailGauge}} was also auto-categorizing pages into "2' gauge railway lines"? Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
'bots should be cautious. If they're not deliberately setting out to modify anything that's passed to a "sensitive" piece of code (quotation, wikilink, external link, template, parameter to a template, parser function or (&deity; preserve us) a call to DPL) then they should keep their robotic little paws well away! There's enough body text out there to keep them busy.
Secondly, a "topic specific" template like {{ RailGauge}} may easily have behaviours above and beyond those of a more generic {{ convert}} template. 'bots can't be expected to know just what, so again they should keep away. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this bot is supposed to do. I reverted part of its edit to I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles) because it changed a quotation of the song lyrics, which is clearly wrong. It unlinked some other dates which I guess is what it's supposed to do, so I didn't touch that part. -- Weeble ( talk) 13:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI, in Ingleton, North Yorkshire your bot made a conversion inside the name of an external link. ( the last edit here) It shouldn't do that! -- Dr Greg ( talk) 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lightmouse. I was pointed to your script by Tony, and I have it transcluded in my monobook. I was wondering if you knew whether it was compatable with User:Brighterorange/punctuation.js I had that installed already, and it too creates an extra tab on the edit screen, but it always seemed to override your script. Can the two work side by side in any way, or would both scripts have to be copy/pasted into one script in order for them to run. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. Matthew Edwards ( talk • contribs • email) 22:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have another question about actually using the script. When I click on the [delink iso] tab the article reloads to the "Current revision"/"Your text" page, and has a little clicky button with a green triangle. I click on the button to show the improved diff view, and nothing happens. Just a box with a long horizontal grey line through it. When I click "save page", it just goes back to the article page without having made any changes. When I click on the history, it's not even as if I made a WP:DUMMY edit. There is simply no history of any change I made. Is something wrong with how I'm doing it? This has happened on every article I've attempted it on. Matthew Edwards ( talk • contribs • email) 09:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I tested it there and the same thing happened, except that I saw this:
"18 suggestions: year linkfix date formatfix year linkfix year linkfix year linkfix year linkfix year linkfix year linkfix ..."
When I clicked on fix, it says "Changing text in wikEd is not yet supported." So I guess if I remove WikEd, everything should work?
Matthew Edwards (
talk •
contribs •
email)
23:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded Image:Matthewedwards Editing.JPG, which shows what tabs I have. After discussing with User:Tony1, it appears I am missing an [all dates] tab. I am wondering if I don't have this because I have the extra delete/protect admin tabs? Any help you can give regarding this is appreciated. Matthew Edwards ( talk • contribs • email) 06:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Any idea on when your bot will be running again? I've got a job for it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate you going through some of the aircraft articles to provide altitude and speed conversions etc; however, if possible, could you please avoid changing the power-weight conversion figures? The weights are expressed in lb and Kg while the power is expressed in units of hp-kW hence the power to weight ratios should also be expressed as kW/kg, it can be confusing to express it as Watts/kg which differs by a factor of 1,000. Thanks, Minorhistorian ( talk) 00:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar | ||
For tireless work fixing units, dates and useless wikilinks, especially in aircraft articles. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you very much. Lightmouse ( talk) 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate it. I am not too worried about the bot. I live in hope of getting permission again. Lightmouse ( talk) 11:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I hadn't realised your bot was still blocked. I'll discuss it with the admin who blocked it, but as I see it, the problems occurred when you tried to add {{ convert}} to existing articles. If you can remove this functionality from the bot (which wasn't part of the original functionality), and assuming User:Hesperian agrees, I'll happily unblock it. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
You just added Category:Living people to the article which isn't really right, might need to tweak your script - SimonLyall ( talk) 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Howdy, Lightmouse. This topic is still not resolved. Your script(s) use ft·lbf as the English torque unit, which may not be the best choice for the automotive articles. Kindly please take a look here. Thanks! — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi lightmouse,
The problem that I see, is that at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot you described the function details as one set of things and you did start doing things that way in the first few days after the bot was approved, but then at some point, without approval, you added some more tasks and started to have the bot do raw unit conversions and de-linking of units. Thus, making changes to the visible text and dramatically increasing the false positives (as was pointed out at Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Request_for_corporate_memory_on_common_bot_screwups).
At this point, just unblocking it would be stepping on the toes of the blocking admin—Hesperian. My suggestion is that you get together with Hesperian and explain/reassure him that you will be abandoning the old approved and unapproved tasks that lightbot was running. Then create a "new task" for the swapping of the codes for {{convert}}
(mi2-->sqmi, etc) so that that task and only that task can be approved. If that goes well then maybe you can get additional tasks approved later. When you ask for a task approval, be very specific and after approval do only what you've asked for. Good luck. —
MJCdetroit
(yak)
18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to add that Hesperian might be reassured by my observations that Lightmouse conducted the running of the bot with sensitivity and politeness, and systematically gathered data WRT its functions and users' reactions. He appeared to be regularly responding to feedback by modifying the script. This is bot-management at its best, IMO. Tony (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate it. Lightmouse ( talk) 10:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you can't do it without adding a bunch of fancy template code (e.g. <noinclude></noinclude>
s) to the page you're transcluding.
JIMp
talk·
cont
15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What a mouthfull that is-anyway, Lightmouse, is there any way that I can prevent the insertion of these templates in articles that I work on? I have reverted already on one article and I noticed a quicker page load time. Not everyone has high speed internet, some are still in dinosaur-dial-up mode. Please respond here on your talk page for easier reading. Sincerely Marcia Wright ( talk) 06:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the metrication script left something odd on a page I edited:
Desert Rock Airport covers 100 acres (0 km²) and has one runway:
The script converted what's in the parentheses from hectares (40) to square kilometers (0), which wouldn't have been a problem if the area figure were larger, but apparently the script felt no digits beyond zero were significant. Michael Patrick ( talk) 20:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lightmouse, would it be possible to set your script to use lk=in when you replace a linked unit with the convert template? e.g. Here you replaced
17 nautical miles
with
{{convert|17|nmi|km}}
thereby discarding a link that would have been retained if you had instead used
{{convert|17|nmi|km|lk=in}}
Hesperian 23:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought "nautical miles" qualified as a plain English word, but it's no problem if you disagree. Carry on as you were rather than let this hold you up. Hesperian 12:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice you mention some 'handy tabs' for use when editing. Do tell what these things do, they might help me!-- Editor510 drop us a line, mate 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. – Quadell ( talk) 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we not linking dates anymore? I didnt get the memo... Qb | your 2 cents 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I was curious as to the reasoning behind this edit, specifically the change of [[Austria|Austrian]] to [[Austria]]n, as well as the same for Brazilian. It seems to be a bit of a silly change if both methods do the exact same thing. The359 ( talk) 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, your bot recently made this edit, which delinked several years e.g. [[1875 in association football|1875]]. I thought per WP:CONTEXT#Dates, linking standalone years to relevant topic articles was perfectly acceptable? cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 12:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been assuming that piped year-links are untouched by the bot. Tony (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether one tab can treat all including the piped year-links, and another everything but. I envisage lots of annoyed comments on my talk page if I remove piped linkes. Tony (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The 'part dates' tab was created to eliminate all date fragments, including 'year in blah'. That included camouflaged links. At the request of Tony, I took 'year in blah' out but it is still included in the 'all dates'. See McDonnell Douglas MD-80. I think interest in piped links is just another a symptom of the obsession with date linking in general. If it really is important, I can move it out of 'all dates' too. Currently, I do not think it is really that important but I am open to debate. The problem is not significance of the link, it is camouflage. Incidentally, Rambling Man, do you use the script? Lightmouse ( talk) 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, on List of Birmingham City F.C. managers, conversion of {{ dts2}} to {{ dts}} has resulted in the list of dates now appearing in US (month-first) format rather than the appropriate international (day-first) format. cheers, Struway2 ( talk)
I reverted the edits on ALSSP as I had not capitulated yet (although I did fix the errors pointed out by User Have a Gorilla). The main issue I have is the conversions in Lassen National Forest size measurement. I believe that this is much easier to read:
Lassen National Forest is a 1.1 million-acre national forest located in northeastern California.
as opposed to this:
Lassen National Forest is a 1,100,000-acre (4,500 km2) national forest located in northeastern California.
with the metric units:
Lassen National Forest is a 1.1 million-acre (4,500 km2) national forest located in northeastern California.
The readability should not be reduced just to have conversions added to the article. Cheers, Marcia Wright ( talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I am NOT saying that metric units should be omitted, I AM saying that for your conversion/template to work, you had to write out this huge number (example #2), versus example #3, which has the metric units but not the long,
impossible-to-read numbers. I, also, appreciate it when reading something that includes standard as well as metric units. "American" has nothing to do with it. Regards,
Marcia Wright (
talk)
15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh Thankyou Yes! That is what I meant. Please correct this on the discussion you just opened and thankyou for the kind words as well.
Looking forward to future collaborations with you. Marcia Wright ( talk) 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Please keep Lightbot from making pointless edits such as this in order to replace "knot" with "kn" in {{ convert}}. As you are aware, there has been considerable reaction in the past against your replacement of the unambiguous, yet still completely functional "knot", by the less-intuitive "kn" in Lightbot weeps. As it stands today, there is no consensus for changing "knot" to "kn" within uses of Template:Convert. — Bellhalla ( talk) 22:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Your bot is replacing knot with kn again. This is unhelpful. Please stop it.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 04:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The template code is getting very complicated with lots of variants that are not visible to the reader. It is being simplified to use an abbreviation at no cost to the reader. I do not know how much a French kilometre differs from a standard kilometre, and which articles use it. Can you give an example and I will take a look? Thanks Lightmouse ( talk) 08:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that iWCR is less explicit than iNumberOfWidgetsRemaining. I also agree with you that obtaining greater support is a good thing. I have never been accused of aggression and I am a disturbed that you think I have been. You may be unaware of how much I do respond to feedback, including your own. Can you give me a link to where you think I have been aggressive? The changes to the code options is a matter for stakeholders at Template talk:Convert not Lightmouse. It does not matter what we decide here, other editors will only change if the issue is discussed there. I suggest we move the discussion there. Lightmouse ( talk) 10:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I have submitted a stop request. Please do not start it again until its behavior is documented on its User page. -- Danorton ( talk) 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. What prompted me was the removal of a wikilinked "20th Century". I do not see where this behavior is documented. When you document it, it would be helpful to include a link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking.-- Danorton ( talk) 18:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not know what you mean. Can you tell me what you think is the problem? Lightmouse ( talk) 19:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The bot request said Unlinking date fragments .... It gave some examples. Lightmouse ( talk) 22:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I see the second bullet item of that link does indeed refer to removing links like 20th century. I cannot find where date framents includes 20th century. I also share Danorton's request that such behaviour be documented on the bot's user page. I just read the two approval requests and I could not see where it states that approval is given for changes resulting from Manual of Style guidelines. In fact I would be quite concerned if such approval exists. - 84user ( talk) 08:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that most people wouldn't have a problem with Lightbot were it better documented. The documentation that is there (actually referenced instead of being directly on the user page) is written for very experienced Wikipedians involved in the bot approval process. This bot is going to be making changes everywhere and it's typically going to be making corrections to novice edits. The documentation needs to be on the bot user page, it needs to be clear and complete (no regexs allowed) and for each type of change it makes, it needs to have a reference to the policy or guideline that it addresses. I suspect that new Wikipedians won't mind if they have an understanding of the purpose behind the edits, but as it is, this bot is going to stir up a lot of trouble without better documentation. With proper documentation it will help educate and inform new Wikipedians and help reduce the number of novice mistakes entered in the first place. There will be more annoyance than benefit unless you suspend the bot and don't restart it until it its behavior is thoroughly documented, especially targeting novice Wikipedians. -- Danorton ( talk) 13:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
sdsds, please can you be explicit about what you do not like and give example edits? Lightmouse ( talk) 10:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Lightmouse people keep telling you what they don't like when your bot edits articles. You listen; you respond; then a few weeks/months we find that you have been carrying on doing it just as if nobody had complained. All the things the bot does can be defended (just like everything else in life). Your bot does some useful things. It also annoys with pointless edits. Here are some examples:
Support a block. I wish a block could be put on your bot for the time being.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 12:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the supporting comment. With regard to 'pointless edits', I have never understood that criticism. Complaints are usually based on a belief that the article is made worse by an edit.
Can we enable or disable the bot User:Lightbot on a per Wikiproject basis? I can see some Wikiprojects would choose to request Lightbot "service" if you will, while other projects may prefer to handle those tasks manually. Apologies if this has been already discussed. - 84user ( talk) 08:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
As Lightbot makes changes stipulated by guidelines and not always by policies, it should be switchable. Even if it only made changes suggested by policy, I feel it should still be selectable. I note the following from Wikipedia Policies and guidelines:
Currently, Lightbot does not allow an editor to use human judgment and ignore the rules. This is a violation of the Ignore all rules pillar. Lightmouse, I generally like what you're doing, but you seem to be continually creating more work for yourself. You need to bend a little more, or Lightbot will end up with considerably more detractors than supporters. -- Danorton ( talk) 14:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
But it's a lil unhelpful...gimme a list of what it does.-- Editor510 drop us a line, mate 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Linking of units is not the issue: Lightbot's forceful editing is the issue. This discussion belongs here, not there. Please move it back or at least restore the original text so that this bot-specific discussion can continue here. -- Danorton ( talk) 14:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
When we say the Battle of Hastings took place 14 October 1066, we are using the Julian calendar then in effect, which differed from the present calendar, the Gregorian, by having leap years in every year ending in 00, not just some of them. The Julian calendar is, over time, perceptibly different from the actual tropical year: its year averages 365.25 days, not 365.242199; Pope Gregory (I forget which number) had a replacement devised in 1582 to (mostly) fix this.
If we project the Gregorian calendar backward in time, the difference from the Julian would change century by century. It is now 13 days; when Gregory first made it, the difference was 10 days; in 1066, it would be six days, so Hastings took place on October 20, 1066 (Gregorian). They agree for the third century; going back further, they diverge again the other way.
All of the customary dating formats are equally applicable to Julian or Gregorian dates; I did not know that ISO declared it was only Gregorian, but if ISO is concerned chiefly with dates after the standard is enacted, that makes sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I see you've been working on this. Might want to grab another function from my script. Some lines have a few false positive though. Gimmetrow 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I realize your script handles some of that elsewhere, but do you have anything that handles dates like the 26th of August? Gimmetrow 21:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
txt.value=txt.value.replace(/(\d(?:st|nd|rd|th)(?:\s|-))Century((?:\s|-)[^A-Z])/g, '$1century$2');
In any case, the incidence of unnecessary 'Century' capitalisation has gone right down too. Perhaps as a result of code like this. So it is hardly worthwhile anymore. There are quite a few things like that in my tabs that I need to migrate to the toolbox buttons.
I can be more brave with the code that I use with my AWB account, see User:Lightmouse/Lightbot/javascript conversion. Although I struggle to keep improvements and bug fixes in synch between monobook, Lightmouse AWB script and Lightbot AWB script. Lightmouse ( talk) 21:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
One little quirk on the units script: I ran it on Bodega, California, which features a link to bodegacalifornia.com. After I ran the script, " http://bo°california.com/" was how the URL read. It seems that "deg" automatically becomes a degree symbol, even when the letters are surrounded by other letters. Michael Patrick ( talk) 19:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I might have to go back to your version before it all went awry, and copy it across to my monobook until it's fixed. It was going so well ... :-) Tony (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Try now. The new code from Gimmetrow that allows us to switch between mdy and dmy is a major feature. We need that. Unfortunately it works in a different way and I don't understand it all. That is why we both have to be a little tolerant of downtime. It is frustrating for you but think how frustrating it might be for me too when I try to learn new code, merge old and new code, and add features without breaking the old ones. I have gone back a few versions and we will build it up again. Let me know if the mdy<->dmy switching works for you now. Lightmouse ( talk) 16:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Off to bed. Tony (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the birth–death one is particularly prevalent, like leprosy in biblical times. There are another few I've noticed. Do you want me to list them here as I come across them? Tony (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you removed the date-removing script from your monobook? Suddenly, the tabs do not appear in the edit mode for me. It is as your script is not transcluded in my monobook anymore. And it was working so well! Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 00:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks! — Mattisse ( Talk) 12:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; it appears to be working well, although I need to run it on more articles to see whether the "and" problem has gone. Earlier today, I reverted my monobook to one of your versions from 25 August, which worked OK, except that it was scrubbing "year in" pipes. Now I've gone back to the transcluded version, and yes, the q tab is there. Great. Tony (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Googling dates with inconsistent date formats: thanks. Once you get away from FAs, there's a much higher incidence of inconsistent formats—more than 50% I'd say. I only bother to point it out when it's a real mess. Even some of our most visited articles are in this category. Tony (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your script, it's brilliant. Quick question/feature request, though, would it be possible to ignore the article 4AD? It comes up quite often on band pages and such and is a bit annoying to fix, especially in discographies that list which label each album was released on. -- Closedmouth ( talk) 13:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the feedback. I fixed the '4AD' and '2000AD' issue once already but that was with an AWB script. I have fixed it with this script now. Let me know if it causes a problem. Feel free to use User:Lightmouse/wishlist. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 14:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)