![]() | This page 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. |
Lightmouse, I have a hunch that you're really really busy in RL nowadays. This is a pity, since many aspects of your work have changed WP over the years for the better. I'm thinking here of the conversion practices for imperial/metric units, for starters.
I hope you find time to help out in the future. This pic is a token of thanks for your contributions. Tony (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Lightmouse ( talk) 12:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Lightmouse ( talk) 13:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record: do you oppose replacing <references />
with {{
Reflist}}
in this article? —
bender235 (
talk)
16:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Been giving this some more thought, and, in line with the comments currently present on the request, given my recommendation for due process, which I have copied below. Does it sound reasonable? Only slightly different from your present proposal, per Kirill really.
“ | 1) Lightmouse submits a new (date/unit) BRFA; 2 or 3) The BRFA is endorsed by Arbcom - they amend prior remedies to allow its passage; 3 or 2) The BRFA passes (or fails) the standard process, which will include a short trial. 4) Instead of being free to continue as he pleases, Lightmouse will remain under trial conditions for three months. Put simply, he will be on best behaviour and expected to be a top operator in responding to comments and complaints; he will be expected to, and I will, check a sample of his own edits at regular intervals; admins and others will be more heavy-handed in stopping the bot from continuing. | ” |
- Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 16:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Please stop and discuss first! There is absolutely no consensus for moving, say, Barn (unit) to Barn (area). Hqb ( talk) 13:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Previous discussions (will look up specifics) have uniformly come down in favor of disambiguating as "(unit)", rather than as the name of the quantity in question. Hqb ( talk) 13:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
See, e.g., here or here. There is still some inconsistency for mainly archaic units, but all the mainstream scientific ones uniformly use "(unit)". I don't think anyone will object if you start moving move all the remaining non-ambiguous ones (with exceptions only for Carat and the like) to "(unit)". Hqb ( talk) 13:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that you limit yourself to the non-controversial cases at first, i.e., proper units of measure for physical quantities. So, from your recent batch, Seah (volume) → Seah (unit) is fine. On the other hand, I would object to Slab (NCR) → Slab (unit), since that one is very NCR-specific, so disambiguating by domain seems more proper. Likewise for R-value (insulation) → R-value (unit); I think it was a mistake for that one to even be included in Category:Units of measure at all. Hqb ( talk) 14:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think my main point is, " There is no deadline". This is a delicate task, definitely not suitable for a bot, or even a bot-like quick scan. Let's be sure to do this carefully, balancing the other concerns brought up in the previous discussions against the desire for consistency. Again, I think the right approach is to do the easy/clearcut cases first, and then perhaps initiate formal move discussions for the remaining ones, or at least be prepared to discuss them individually if someone objects to a WP:BOLD move. Hqb ( talk) 14:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Right; most of those should be fairly simple, and probably do not require any up-front discussion. We have a lot of historical/customary "(length)" and "(volume)" articles, which I don't think would be problematic to move to "(unit)" (after individual sanity checks, of course). The ones disambiguated by "(domain)" could take a bit more deliberation – I'm not convinced that they would all be more naturally dab'ed as "(unit)" instead. Hqb ( talk) 14:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 15:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that you can reasonably start with moving back, over the next couple of days, those articles that you yourself moved from "(unit)" to "(quantity)" in 2007 and 2008. (Remember to update the relevant dab page entries as well.) Then let's see what's left. Hqb ( talk) 17:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give
Line_(length) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into
Line (unit). This is known as a "
cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Hqb ( talk) 17:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for using a template; please ignore that part and read the rest of the explanation. Hqb ( talk) 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As the template says, list the move at WP:RM, or if the target page history only contains redirect entries, tag it for deletion with {{ db-move}} Hqb ( talk) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Folks, I don't give a hoot if it's (measurement), (length), or (unit) but please don't call it length (horse racing). It's a measurement. A weird measurement primarily used with horses, but for one thing, it is not only used in racing (we also use it in other horse disciplines at times), and for another, it should be lumped in with all the other odd measurements like cubits, ells, etc... Many thanks for moving it back to wherever it was. Montanabw (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Lightmouse, I have a hunch that you're really really busy in RL nowadays. This is a pity, since many aspects of your work have changed WP over the years for the better. I'm thinking here of the conversion practices for imperial/metric units, for starters.
I hope you find time to help out in the future. This pic is a token of thanks for your contributions. Tony (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Lightmouse ( talk) 12:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Lightmouse ( talk) 13:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record: do you oppose replacing <references />
with {{
Reflist}}
in this article? —
bender235 (
talk)
16:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Been giving this some more thought, and, in line with the comments currently present on the request, given my recommendation for due process, which I have copied below. Does it sound reasonable? Only slightly different from your present proposal, per Kirill really.
“ | 1) Lightmouse submits a new (date/unit) BRFA; 2 or 3) The BRFA is endorsed by Arbcom - they amend prior remedies to allow its passage; 3 or 2) The BRFA passes (or fails) the standard process, which will include a short trial. 4) Instead of being free to continue as he pleases, Lightmouse will remain under trial conditions for three months. Put simply, he will be on best behaviour and expected to be a top operator in responding to comments and complaints; he will be expected to, and I will, check a sample of his own edits at regular intervals; admins and others will be more heavy-handed in stopping the bot from continuing. | ” |
- Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 16:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Please stop and discuss first! There is absolutely no consensus for moving, say, Barn (unit) to Barn (area). Hqb ( talk) 13:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Previous discussions (will look up specifics) have uniformly come down in favor of disambiguating as "(unit)", rather than as the name of the quantity in question. Hqb ( talk) 13:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
See, e.g., here or here. There is still some inconsistency for mainly archaic units, but all the mainstream scientific ones uniformly use "(unit)". I don't think anyone will object if you start moving move all the remaining non-ambiguous ones (with exceptions only for Carat and the like) to "(unit)". Hqb ( talk) 13:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that you limit yourself to the non-controversial cases at first, i.e., proper units of measure for physical quantities. So, from your recent batch, Seah (volume) → Seah (unit) is fine. On the other hand, I would object to Slab (NCR) → Slab (unit), since that one is very NCR-specific, so disambiguating by domain seems more proper. Likewise for R-value (insulation) → R-value (unit); I think it was a mistake for that one to even be included in Category:Units of measure at all. Hqb ( talk) 14:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think my main point is, " There is no deadline". This is a delicate task, definitely not suitable for a bot, or even a bot-like quick scan. Let's be sure to do this carefully, balancing the other concerns brought up in the previous discussions against the desire for consistency. Again, I think the right approach is to do the easy/clearcut cases first, and then perhaps initiate formal move discussions for the remaining ones, or at least be prepared to discuss them individually if someone objects to a WP:BOLD move. Hqb ( talk) 14:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Right; most of those should be fairly simple, and probably do not require any up-front discussion. We have a lot of historical/customary "(length)" and "(volume)" articles, which I don't think would be problematic to move to "(unit)" (after individual sanity checks, of course). The ones disambiguated by "(domain)" could take a bit more deliberation – I'm not convinced that they would all be more naturally dab'ed as "(unit)" instead. Hqb ( talk) 14:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 15:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that you can reasonably start with moving back, over the next couple of days, those articles that you yourself moved from "(unit)" to "(quantity)" in 2007 and 2008. (Remember to update the relevant dab page entries as well.) Then let's see what's left. Hqb ( talk) 17:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give
Line_(length) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into
Line (unit). This is known as a "
cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Hqb ( talk) 17:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for using a template; please ignore that part and read the rest of the explanation. Hqb ( talk) 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As the template says, list the move at WP:RM, or if the target page history only contains redirect entries, tag it for deletion with {{ db-move}} Hqb ( talk) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Folks, I don't give a hoot if it's (measurement), (length), or (unit) but please don't call it length (horse racing). It's a measurement. A weird measurement primarily used with horses, but for one thing, it is not only used in racing (we also use it in other horse disciplines at times), and for another, it should be lumped in with all the other odd measurements like cubits, ells, etc... Many thanks for moving it back to wherever it was. Montanabw (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)