Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:50, 5 September 2008

Thanks for the advice about date unlinking, but...

Hello, Lightmouse. I just installed (or tried to) your date unlinking script. After a false start or two, i got it installed (I think), then went to the page I wanted to work on and tried it, finding the "delink all dates to mdy" on the lower left of the page you get when you edit the page. The page = manga.

As far as I can see, nothing happened. There are still a large number of linked dates in the reference list, many of them in the Accessed Date field. See, for example, references 110 and 126 of the manga article.

Now what?

Timothy Perper (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to clear your cache before it will work. The instructions on how to clear your cache are at the top of: User:Timothy Perper/monobook.js. Let me know if it work after you have done that. Lightmouse (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I already did that -- thanks, but it still didn't work. I use Safari (on a Mac), and the instructions for clearing the cache aren't accurate. It says hit the "reload" button, but Safari 1.3.2 (v312.6), the one I have, does not have a "reload" button. It has a "stop/reload" button, but reloading with that button didn't make the script work. Safari also has a "reload page" button in the View menu, but hitting that doesn't make the script work. So I cleared the cache (a different procedure) and that didn't work either. Any hints? Timothy Perper (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Timothy, I also use Safari for the Mac. It's the semicircular arrow button top left. Otherwise, Command–R will do it. Let me know. Tony (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have many reasons to love the Mac but Tony, you would do great work with AWB and for that you need PC access. At least try running AWB at an internet cafe or on a friend's PC just to see what it can do. Lightmouse (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony -- I know where the reload button is. But, on the other hand, I've figured out the glitch. The script does not delink dates in the references -- or it hasn't so far -- although it delinks them in the main text. Yes, the text dates have been delinked, leaving all the dates in the refs still linked. Whether that's what you wanted, I don't know, but that's what it's doing. I think this may be an "Oh well... good try" situation. Or maybe you should try it yourself to see if it's my specific browser? I'll leave that up to you. Thanks again... Timothy Perper (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't clear enough. To see what is happening and what is not, go to the manga page and get the history (at the moment, it'll be the last two changes -- mine and the one right before it). Bring them both up in double columns and compare. The older text has the links -- ], ] or somesuch -- and the newer text has it without the links -- April 23, 2007. BUT when you look at the reference list, you'll find that the dates have been relinked somehow. I think the only way to see this is to visit the page and look at it, not only the double columns but the reference list itself, e.g., #110 and #126. I hope that's clearer. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Timothy: the script will not touch access dates within citation templates, sadly. All in good time.MOSNUM is fine with one date format in the refs, and one in the main text (i.e., square-bracket-generated dates). Tony (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Uh, why are you unlinking dates?? — TAnthony 17:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope Lightmouse doesn't mind if I answer with a real example. If you check Talk:manga#What is the intention here? you'll find a longish example of why dates should not be linked, in general, to lists about "the year in general" or "the date in general." Thus, a date listed somewhere as April 27, 2007 will be autoformatted to become ], ], that is, as April 27, 2008. If you click on either part, you'll be brought to a long and irrelevant list of events since antiquity that occurred on April 27 or that have occurred in 2008.

What's wrong with that, you ask? Fair question. The first event listed for April 27 is "1124 - David I becomes King of Scotland" -- a meaningless factoid if you're reading an article about manga (Japanese cartooning) or anything else except the History of Scotland. Likewise, clicking on the 2008 link will lead to "January 1 - Cyprus, Malta, and Akrotiri and Dhekelia adopt the euro," again a factoid of no relevance to Japanese cartooning. If you look at the manga article, to which I have contributed extensively, you will find dozens upon dozens of these meaningless links. Somewhere in the list of things Wiki is not there's a comment that Misplaced Pages is not a random collection of facts. Alas... that is exactly what it is when each and every date in each and every reference (there are over 125 references in the manga article) links to lists of events since antiquity of every imaginable occurrence and happening. A cat furball is simplicity itself compared to the mish-mash of irrelevancies that are currently linked to the manga article through uncontrolled (and uncontrollable?) date-linking.

I urge you to read the Talk:manga example I cited above; some of these exiguous links are really quite funny when they're this wildly out-of-context. I hope that's clearer -- uncontrolled date-linking is not a virtue but only makes an otherwise carefully referenced article a porcupine of links going every which way, all to no purpose or point.

Timothy Perper (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I understood why one might want to unlink dates but was unaware of an MOS change ... yeah, I know, the link was in the edit summary LOL ;) — TAnthony 16:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not put a prominent invisible note at the top of the ref section, saying NO CITATION TEMPLATES? Tony (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. There's a long and contentious history here. When I added most of these references, I did not use the {{cite web}} template nor any other kind of template. I added a number of notes to the talk page about it, but then the kobolds started in on changing my references to templated ones, thereby introducing a long host of errors. I corrected them over and over again, and yet ever more kobolds arose to take the place of the old ones. It's like sweeping the tide back out to sea with a broom. If I put up that invisible note, then I will once again have to correct something like 100-120 references for probably the third time against a tide of opposition.

I think that the problem of these templates needs to be addressed at the Manual of Style level, with consensus and some clear discussion of what is wrong with the citation and date-linking templates. I have been an editor for professional scholarly journals since the 1980s, and I know how to set up a reference -- and these templates are no good. But I'm tilting at windmills on Wiki about it. Perhaps if some of us cooperated in an effort to get these points across to a broader audience that might help. That is perhaps something we can do together, because I strongly oppose profligate and promiscuous date-linking for the sake of date-linking -- which is what we currently have. So it's over to you guys.

Timothy Perper (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was also surprised that Lightmouse unlinked the dates, until I saw that the Manual of Style has been changed since 24 August 2008. Dates should not be linked purely for the function of autoformatting. I believe the reasons for this change are the ones mentioned above. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You may also be aware that 'Lightbot' is my bot that has been unlinking 'date fragments' (I use the term 'date fragment' to mean any date elements that are not-autoformattable). It has not unlinked any autoformattable date. I would be grateful if you could support its continued use by adding a comment at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. Lightmouse (talk)

Date-removing script

Dear Lightmouse,

Your date-unlinking script looks really useful, and I wanted to try it out. I imported it into my monobook, but I can't figure out how to start it up. Could you give me some instruction please? Thanks! NuclearWarfare _{My work} 16:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You first have to clear your cache. If you look at the top of User:NuclearWarfare/monobook.js, you will see instructions how to do that. Then go to a page you want to edit e.g. User:Lightmouse/sandbox (I don't know if you have permission to edit that - feel free to try). Click 'edit this page' as normal. Then while in edit mode, you will see some commands in the 'toolbox' at the left of the page below 'What links here'. Press 'delink all dates to dmy' and let me know what happens. Lightmouse (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you, but I still cannot get it to work, not anywhere, not even on your sandbox article. I must have tried everything, but it always comes up with null changes. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you have wikEd installed. User:Matthewedwards had trouble making the script work, and concluded that the only way to do so is to disable wikEd every time you want to run the script. User:Gary King has no trouble running the script without disabling wikEd. See this discussion in my talk archives. The only other thing I can think of is your addition of the semicolon after the transcusion string; but it almost certainly doesn't affect things. Tony (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC) PS Remember to clear your cache. Tony (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Bingo! Thanks for your advice. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just for the record, which one of the issues was causing the problem? Tony (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Job for Lightbot

... hey ... I think I might have a job for Lightbot if you get your "blank cheque" (smirks) ... no changes to any text so you'll be right on that count. JIMp _talk·cont 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't explain now but see Template_talk:Infobox_Airport#Automatic_conversions I've really got to sleep. JIMp _talk·cont 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. I saw that conversation before. I don't understand it all but if you spoon feed me the details, I will do it when I get the cheque. But if Lightbot is not approved to run automatically for units, it will be too tedious for me to take on. Lightmouse (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks for the link. If film jump, I will suggest at the comics project that we do to. Whether consensus will be to jump is another matter. I'll keep an eye on the film discussion. Out of curiosity, how hard would it be for your bot to change links in the form ] to 1939 (see 1939 in comics)? Hiding T 22:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In technical terms it is *very easy* to change ] to 1939 (see 1939 in comics). You can even do it yourself now on a voluntary per-article basis if you install my script. Simply copy:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

to User:Hiding/monobook.js and refresh your cache. Then when you are in edit mode, you will find a 'delink year-in-X dates' button and some other handy buttons in your toolbox on the left of the page below 'What links here'. Let me know how you get on. Lightmouse (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Hiding's suggestion is for more than what the script currently does (replaces the pipe with just an unlinked year alone). It's very doable, but would require a little programming. But more broadly, now that linked unpiped years are largely a thing of the past, I wonder whether the meaning of a blue year has already to some extent, and will further change to an indication of a piped year link. Your suggestion may be unnecessary. Another issue is that there's quite a strong feeling in some quarters that piped year-links are usually to general to satisfy the MoS requirement that they significantly increase the understanding of the reader—at least not swathes of them, such as I see in list tables. Once you link to one "year in" article, you can go straight to any of them. Tony (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the script

That's all :) —Do U(knome)? _{or no} 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cite date

Regarding this, I have a function which converts "|date=2008-09-03" into "|date=3 September 2008". Cite episode and I think cite video produce redlinks, but I thought you might want to know. Gimmetrow 05:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be delighted to be able to add the code to the script. How can we confirm that this is an acceptable change? Lightmouse (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It would delight me, too. It's dizzying to read two formats for the same date on the same line. Some editors do feel strongly about the use of ISO in their citations, but just how many really do when they see the result of such a change can be judged only by applying the function. I'm willing to give it a go. Tony (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Updating monobook?

(Re your comment here) I'd be glad to consider updating. What can you tell me about the current version vs. the one I'm using? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Script update

Hi, i updated my monobook, it took time to find that the "buttons" are now in toolbox ,) --— Typ932  15:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention it. I did have a dummy tab mentioning where the commands have moved to. But people asked me to remove it. I hope that you find the script useful. Feel free to comment or make suggestions for the script at User talk:Lightmouse/wishlist. Lightmouse (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would welcome your comments on my latest bot request Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Battleship

The edits to the Battleship article produced some dates with commas that don't belong, such as 24 May, 2008. I also note that while autoformatting was removed, no effort was made to make the dates consistent. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The comma was a defect due to the AWB script code looking for 'May 24, 2008'. The code was updated shortly after that and you will see from my later AWB edits that it did not happen again. You will also see from my later edits that the AWB script code made the dates consistent (although it is desirable to do that at the same time, I don't believe it is mandatory). Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of auto-formatted dates

Please do not remove auto-formatted dates, as you did with USS Aeolus (ID-3005) in this edit. Such removals are contrary to MOS:NUM where auto-formatted dates, though no longer required nor encouraged, are, nevertheless, a perfectly valid option for an article. There was no discussion on the Talk page nor was there any discussion with me, the primary contributor to this article , regarding this drastic change. Please note that I am assuming no ownership of the article in question. It's just common courtesy for drastic and controversial edits to an article. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I looked the link you provided for MOS:NUM. It says:

• The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated

Since you raise a general principle about the guideline, perhaps it would be worth discussing it at the talk page of that guideline. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wellll I'm on the fence here. It's definitely not a "drastic change", as the dates that were linked have nothing to do with that ship...and if Lightmouse had to contact the primary contributors to discuss this on every article, he'd never get anything done....do we really need those dates linked? Bellhalla, take it to that talk page...you can't fault Lightmouse for trying to carry out the new guidelines...but i don't know if it is that big of a deal... Good luck in solving this... the_ed17 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing to solve, since we're pledged not to edit-war. I've left a note at Bellhalla's talk page. I just think it's a pity for the article and its readers. Tony (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to undertake a lot of contentious and sometimes widespread actions which gain the ire of some editors. Perhaps you'd be better off discussing first. Timeshift (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a generic issue relating to the guideline and its implementation, it belongs on the talk page of MOS:NUM where more stakeholders can see it. I look forward to joining in the discussion over there. Lightmouse (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong conversions by Lightbot

Moved generic issue to Template_talk:Convert#When_is_a_knot_not_a_knot.3F. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Script handling month capitalization

I ran across an article with several uncapitalized months. Here's my diff. I capitalized the months manually. Do you think this might be a useful enhancement to the script? --Elliskev 12:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I think lower case looks cute. But stick it on User talk:Lightmouse/wishlist since it seems a reasonable request. Lightmouse (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Script error?

This edit unlinked dates of the form "12 August 1841" which, as far as I remember, should remain linked. If at all, this should be fixed to "12 August, 1841". Averell (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit is correct. There should be no comma for 'day month year'. Your memory may be thinking of 'month day, year'. See Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates. I hope that helps. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Why are you delinking dates? Full dates should always be linked. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The guidance at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_autoformatting says:

• The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated.

It is taking a while for people to become aware of this. Lightmouse (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is. I have been an editor and an administrator for several years and edit Misplaced Pages pretty much every day and it's the first I've heard of it. Where was this discussed openly apart from between a few interested parties on the MoS page? It's a huge change and one I certainly don't agree with. It seems this has been rather slipped in by the back door and for such a major change that is the wrong way to go about things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to raise such questions at wp:mosnum? I am not sure if I can help you with the answers. Lightmouse (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're likely to get a lot of editors concerned about this; you might want to put a large note at the top of your user talk page briefly explaining why and directing editors to WT:MOSNUM. As the author of quite a few biographies I've no problem with the unlinking of dates in articles, although I think a lot of editors will not realise that the reason they were supposed to be linked was because of date preference. Many editors will just that "Misplaced Pages articles have dates linked" and might wrongly assume it is a newbie mistake to unlink them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I too am an author of many biographies. I'm fully aware of why dates are linked. And I totally disagree with their delinking, particularly the manner in which it seems to have been introduced. It's a big change and it needs discussion by more than a handful of date afficionados. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)