• • Archives I, II, III, IV and V

A couple weeks ago, you undid a revision I made in WP:MOSNUM with the summary "undiscussed instruction creep - why not use the symbols? they look a whole lot better to me." I wanted to point out that this was neither "undiscussed" nor "instruction creep". The fact is that this was already in the MOS under WP:MSM#Superscripts_and_subscripts and exists for a number of reasons. It was simply copied over to MOSNUM for consistency's sake. However, to answer your question directly, the reasons the symbols should not be used are:

1. The symbols do not look the same as any other superscripts. There is no reason why there should be two different superscript formats - one for 2 and 3, and another for all others.
2. While it may be easier for you to read, that is not universally the case. Many fonts do not display these symbols properly. Some fonts do not support these symbols at all. (In my case, for example, the symbol for superscript 2 and 3 are almost indistinguishable.)
3. Most screen readers for the blind do not recognize the symbol, but most will recognize the superscript properly.

At any rate, I hope you now understand that the instruction was not arbitrary, but designed to maximize accessibility to Wikipedia, which is what the Manual of Style is all about. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It might well be noted that the section you've linked to deals specifically with superscripts and subscripts within the context of typesetting of mathematical formulae. By copying it over to MOSNUM you very much broaden its scope. This broadening of scope entailed the addition of rules which had not been discussed on WT:MOSNUM. Viewed in this light, is my labelling it as "undiscussed instruction creep" inaccurate?

"The symbols do not look the same as any other superscripts", no, and I would therefore suggest that they not be used together. Whilst this may be reason enough to rule them out in the context of mathematical formulae wherein any arbitary super- or subscript may be encountered, I see no cause here to extend this beyond this context. Specifically, when it comes to units of measurement in ordinary non-scientific/technical prose superscript 2 and 3 are quite common (owing, of course, to the fact that we live in a universe of three spatial dimentions) whereas other superscripts are rare enough to be safely ignored.

Yes, they do look different, <sup>2</sup> and <sup>3</sup> distort a line of text whereas the pre-made symbols do not. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that there should be one superscript format for 2 and 3, and another for all others. Use what fits best in the context. You do make a good point about readability in other fonts & by screen readers. Jɪmp 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I certainly understand where you are coming from. I've always considered there to be a single Manual of Style of which the various subpages are merely sections, which should be consistent with each other. One of the stated goals of the Manual of Style is to maintain consistency. If the Manual is inconsistent with itself, then the Manual has failed in its goal. Since there was a discussion of the super- and subscripts in MSM, and the consensus there was not based purely on mathematical concepts (with the notable exception of the LaTeX rendering), I feel the discussion was in the scope of the general Manual of Style. In that light, I don't feel I've broken any scope. However, I readily admit that both of our points of view are completely understandable. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree whole-heartedly with the view that there is but one "Manual of Style of which the various subpages are merely sections, which should be consistent with each other." I am, however, of the view that that consistency should spread from the more general page(s) to the more specific. That is consensus reached on the talk page of a sub-manual should be secondary to that reached on WT:MOS not the other way around. The discussion on the sub-manual talk page may have had a more general scope but until it's carried out on talk page the more general manual I don't believe it's incorrect to target it as "undiscussed". Moreover, I don't see inconsistency in allowing something in one context and disallowing it in another. I'd also admit that your point of view is completely understandable, though. Jɪmp 01:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to give you a heads up that I’ve transplanted the most important parts from my talk page to here at Talk:MOSNUM. Hope to see you there. Greg L (my talk) 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Jimp, so far it seems we’ve got a three-in-a-row streak of positive support. Do you want to make it four? Greg L (my talk) 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Enginote requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Converta has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It turns out you're right, the prefix deca is used outside the US and deka is used inside the US. Unfortunately, NIST Special Publication 333 has it wrong in it's forward on page iii, which says

The spelling of English words is in accordance with the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual, which follows Webster’s Third New International Dictionary rather than the Oxford Dictionary. Thus the spellings “meter,” “liter,” and “deca” are used rather than “metre,” “litre,” and “deka” as in the original BIPM English text

--Gerry Ashton (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is strange. Jɪmp 06:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:LDS Temple list/size-height-site requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((tranclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has nominated Graeme Johnston, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graeme Johnston and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimp, it looks like the voting at Talk:MOSNUM is going well enough that it’s logical to wonder how one actually gets a {delimitnum} parser function made. From your earlier posts on my talk page it appears that pulling this off with a template will be tough; what with complex logic and numeric values that may occasionally exceed 12 digits. You’ve written that parser functions/magic words are the method that will best handle this. Those are apparently written by “developers” (the programmers who make Wikipedia’s magic all possible). Do you know how we go forward? Is there someone at MOSNUM who tends to such matters and sees to it that “developer issues” are kicked up the ladder and addressed? Is that person you? And when would you know when to move forward? Is there a caretaker on Talk:MOSNUM who would advise you as to timing? Greg L (my talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jimp,

I see that you've been very active in Wikipedia, and not only with writing articles. As one of your articles are currently under review for deletion on the grounds of non-notability, I wanted to suggest that you consider transferring it to Wikipopuli, a wiki that I set up to host biographical articles without a notability requirement. Indeed, given your level of experience in the wiki world, I'd be grateful for any feedback you care to give on the site. We could use someone with your experience! Thanks TheYellowCabin (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:^/10 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jimp, This is Greg Glover

I come to you for some help. I hope you can help me or refer me to the party that can. I have had several discussions with Rracecarr concerning several different articles. However it seems he finds it necessary to delete anything I post within Wikipedia on the pages that discuss old English units of measure (i.e. foot-pound force). It seems he has deleted your and others work as well. I’m all for making something better, but to be honest; I believe his work and postings are counter productive.

Without taking up a bunch of your time and space, can you advise me on how we can make the Foot-pound force article more reader friendly with have to revert to whole sale deletions? If not, I think it may be time for an intermediary.

Thank you Greg Glover (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:US oz to ml requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:US oz to ml/1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:US oz to ml/0 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:US oz to ml/2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:US pt to ml requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Unit of length/BigsmalllP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Unit of length/SI3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Unit of length/SIcm requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ever consider it? Having administrator access would benefit you. If interested or not, contact me via email to discuss it further. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 00:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10-4, roger, got it, thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has nominated Varieties of Australian English, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varieties of Australian English and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed you have been adding metric to imperial numbers. Thanks for the hard work. Something that might make it easy... I've got templates for all the conversions you've been doing. Go to my user page and look at the tempates there. They are cut and paste, then plug in the appropriate numbers. Remember to keep imperial numbers first in the case of American-developed cartridtges, Metric in the case of all others including NATO standards like the 7.62 and 5.56 NATO's. --Asams10 (talk)

As the discussion at WP:MOSNUM seems to have swerved about a bit, I put together the beginnings of a template ((DWT|number|unit|first)) in hopes that it might meet most requirements. I thought I'd give you a heads up in case you're still interested. I'll post over at WP:MOSNUM later on. Best. Haus^Talk 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it's fine. what's important is that User:Twinkletester be the one who "created" (according to the page history) the sandbox, since the creator gets warnings from deletion scripts like twinkle, and you haven't changed that. —Random832 04:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to make you aware that I made a post here on Talk:MOSNUM regarding the new ((delimitnum)) template. See you there. Greg L (my talk) 22:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure what you did, but since you made your edits to the above template it doesn't display correctly. I think you may have missed out a )) somewhere along the line. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, still something missing somewhere. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - have you seen Template:Infobox UK place/Test? It may be the ideal place to try out improvements to the infobox, without having to worry about affecting its display on thousands of articles. Warofdreams talk 01:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there! I have every faith you're working on something that improves the infobox, but it might be more courteous to breifly explain what it is you're changing and/or trying to achieve on the talk page too. Would that be possible at all? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You appear to have left the template broken - os_grid_reference field is no longer being displayed.Dallan72 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And there's an extra "))" appearing at the end of it - I've just spent time trying to work out how Leeds had been messed up before realising it was a template problem! Perhaps the sugestion about sandbox might be right. But thanks for your work on this useful template. PamD (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reverting. Please do use Template:Infobox UK place/Test until you have a stable version. Agathoclea (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created this template many months ago, I wasn't aware it was in use. Looking through it has been reactivated after an edit from Alexsanderson83.Londo06 16:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Centurynum/following requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Centurynum/mth requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Centurynum/nth requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Centurynum/previous requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Centurynum/th requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Numtext/8th

A tag has been placed on Numtext/8th, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template ((hangon)) to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RyRy5 talk 08:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Numtext/12th

A tag has been placed on Numtext/12th, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template ((hangon)) to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RyRy5 talk 08:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong Location

Your kinda new here so I will give you a break. Any massages you give a person has to be on their talkpage, not userpage. Also, I gave you a welcome at the top of the page. Welcome!--RyRy5 talk 08:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, your not new. Looking at your archives, your really not new.--RyRy5 talk 08:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's OK with me. If your not new, why didn't you create full userpage for yourself? Right now, there are only 3 barnstars on your page. --RyRy5 talk 08:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest recreating it. It looks kinda empty. Don't forget to sign my Guestbook.--RyRy5 talk 08:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, talk to you tommorrow, er, today I guess.--RyRy5 talk 08:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I'm still reverting with rollback and not leaving yet.--RyRy5 talk 09:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work

Good job on the MPGe edits. I had to redo some of your edits because I replaced the table. I think I got them all. Do you think a second table with the "max. averages" is needed? Ephdot (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft

I've got a first draft of the mpgge/MPGe template written: User:Ephdot/MPGe. I'd love some feedback in it's talk page about it. Ephdot (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

latest idea on my talk page. Ephdot (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've opened the discussion on the MOSNUM talk page as you suggested. Have also given my reasons on the Convert talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:10^/19

A tag has been placed on Template:10^/19, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Template:10^/19|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. —  scetoaux (T/C) 00:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:10^/-1

Template:10^/-1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. flaminglawyer^c 00:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:10^/-10

Template:10^/-10 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. flaminglawyer^c 00:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:10^/2

Template:10^/2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. flaminglawyer^c 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:10^/3

Template:10^/3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. flaminglawyer^c 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:10^/4

Template:10^/4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. flaminglawyer^c 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:10^/5

Template:10^/5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. flaminglawyer^c 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:10^/6

Template:10^/6 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. flaminglawyer^c 00:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep

About the deletion of the subpages of the template 10^, i didnt realize they were actually used by the 10^ template. So i took them off the TFD page. (I forgot to take off the tags...) flaminglawyer^c 11:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That had been my guess. I should probably add a bit of documentation to them. JЇѦρ 01:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you edit yourself out of your own talk page, or do you really not respond to posts here? I find your talk page a bit confusticating. Didn't come here to complain about anything, I just find it unusual. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tend to respond on the talk pages of those who post here. JЇѦρ 11:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Template Barnstar
		For righteously shaking your fist in the face of the status quo by implementing something as seemingly goofy yet inherently useful as ((convert|8|ft|5+5/8|in)), I award you this Strine "Tin Plate Barn's Tar." HausTalk 11:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your addition to ((ScientificValue/units)) has a problem, see Template talk:ScientificValue#New units feature for details.
-- SkyLined (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanx. fixt. JЇѦρ 16:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a documented discussion showing not to use the auto templates or is this just your preference? Roguegeek (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replying here. Roguegeek (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimp: Here’s another important issue we’re (list of “we” here) trying to address: An article on advanced programming for software developers might best use “kibibytes” (KiB) whereas general-interest articles should adhere to the more familiar "kilobyte” (KB) to avoid confusion (see inception of the policy (scroll down) and here also). And also these:

• Talk:MOSNUM, Archive 97 (hybrid proposal)
• Talk:MOSNUM, Archive 98 (über poll)
• The proposal that didn’t make it

Greg L (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JIMP Do not edit out my edits unless you can provided evidence i.e citation that they are wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.87.8.23 (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2008

58.87.8.23, my friend, it's up to you to provide citation that they are right. JЇѦρ 08:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can but can provide any citation of the existing text? If not leave it alone or the article is not correct or balanced in view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.87.8.23 (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My reply is at User talk:Bleakcomb#Lane Cove National Park, Parks, Infoboxes, Hectares

Section title just about covers it. Hi JimP. I noticed your recent edits to Lane Cove National Park. It really needed an infobox didn't it? Your edits have raised several issues or projects that I had put on the way-backburner, hence this section name. I'll just run over them to let you know some the directions I think some of them should take.

There are a lot of Australian and NSW National Park (protected area) articles that could use some love and attention (Lane Cove was an obvious example). Is there a project somewhere that you know of that is doing this?

I noticed that you used ((Infobox park)). Have you seen ((Geobox/type/nature))? I had actually been playing with it using Lane Cove as a test in my sandbox. Note that some the parameters there are garbage. I think the box looks pretty cool. Geobox|Protected Area is fairly widely used. Is there some wikiconvention that would break? I am still a bit of a noob.

Next beef. Hectares. I had tried to edit an article on a park in the US. The area was given in acres and square kilometres. I changed the conversion from square kilometres to hectares and was roundly smacked. I was informed that hectares were "deprecated" and not to be used in WP. After a long laugh and several hearty discussions I managed to turn three contributors around to see that hectares are perfectly valid units for land measurement. Then I thought only a couple of million other US contributors to go and rightly put that fight on the backburner. In my robust discussions on the matter I came across a now disappeared user (Bobblewik) who took it upon himself to "excise" hectares from WP. Lane Cove National Park was one such article. The original text was hectares and were converted to square kilometres in hard text. Most if not all NSW national park articles have received the same treatment. In some cases there has been a loss of significant digit information due to rounding. Note that most park administrators (NSWPWS, Victoria, SA, etc) list hectares and would be used as source for many articles. If you get into infoboxing park articles could you bear this in mind. When I have enough wikitime I would like to address national park articles to make sure listed areas reflect sources with respect to units and values of their areas.

Random musings. Feedback appreciated. Bleakcomb (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Short on time this weekend. When I have more of it (time) I will do some work on NSW national parks to the extent I can.
The hectares thing has really surprised me. Here is a recent edit that shows that there are many some editors who still avoid hectares. Where I came across the belief that hectares shouldn't be used in WP was a similar situation. The article used acres first and converted to sqkm for metric users. I find that generally, wherever acres are used, hectares is logical unit to use for conversion. Then there is the slightly different question of where the article would normally use metric units first and may not even have a non-metric conversion. This is where I would expect to see hectares used for managed land area - afterall the managers almost always use hectares. I was fully stunned at the extent to which hectares have been removed in this situation. The subject has been touched on by editors asking the question, but no consensus was achieved or recorded. I had noticed the work you linked to on MOSNUM follow the current literature. I had backed away from it in fright not too long ago. I will have another read next week. Also have a look at recent edits I made to the hectare article. There is a long story that helps to explain why hectares got such a bad wrap, both NIST & BIPM are involved. The edits partially reflect the story. I can dig up the rest next week. A lot of this is or should be self-evident and shouldn't really need to be spelt out in MoS, but otherwise, where else? Bleakcomb (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:Lightmouse#Using policy pages as scratchpads

The stuff that is going on at wp:mosnum bothers me. Surely policies should only go live when reasonably well formed and agreed. At least I thought that was what we required of other editors. What are your thoughts on this? Lightmouse (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is certainly not the standard way of going about things. A note on the page alerting people to the fact that discussions related to the particular section in question are in progress would be a useful thing to have but spelling a proposal out in full is likely to cause confusion. My thoughts on this really haven't changed since 9:06 am GMT 18 April 2008 when I voiced my approval of the removal of the proposal (then in the guise of policy) by you & Thunderbird2. My preference would have been to have had it removed again but, not wanting an edit war, I thought that by labelling it as a proposed guideline a compromise might be reached. Still, I feel that we might be setting a dangerous precident here. I'd not want to see this kind of approach taken again. JЇѦρ 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A slower approach to change on style guidelines pages was what I was asking for at WP:VPP; all I could get there was a lack of direct opposition to the idea of posting a notice that changes sometimes happen slower on style guidelines pages. Kim made a pretty solid point that no one can ever say "you can't do things that way", and he indicated the same consensus had been reached over and over, and no one on WP:VPP disagreed. I really am hopeful that the monthly summaries will smooth out the wrinkles.

I came over to ask: Jimp, what did you mean when you said a few hours ago that the proposal is "gone"? Isn't it there on the protected page under "follow current literature"? (Feel free to reply here) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I missed it. I was looking for the green box where it had been living. JЇѦρ 02:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'tis back... enjoy!SkierRMH (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are currently 3 of them showing up in the speedy deletion category - you may want to fix those before they get deleted again ;) SkierRMH (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These have all been superceded by a new parser function. JIMp _talk·cont 16:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:10^

Template:10^ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:^

Template:^ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:^/+

Template:^/+ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimp: You’ve been fairly warned. Just because you disagree with an outcome on “Follow current literature” is no excuse vandalize the guideline by placing {disputed} tags on it to show your displeasure with the outcome. The policy was extensively debated and the consensus is clear. Greg L (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No vandalism on my part, Greg. JIMp _talk·cont 15:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assure you I know neither User:Classicaio nor User:Wittiams. I have nothing to do with them. I, User:NotSarenne, was blocked under the false assumption of being a sockpuppet of User:Sarenne. I only picked the account name after repeatedly being accused of sockpuppetry by User:Fnagaton when I was making anonymous edits. I never used Tor. I never used multiple accounts. I don't know User:Sarenne at all. Since then I've noticed quite a few accounts getting blocked as "sockpuppet of User:NotSarenne". The truth is, a few of these were accounts that I created one after another - after getting blocked again to be precise. I wouldn't have created any other accounts but blocking the complete sub-network of my ISP leaves me with only a few options. Many of the blocked so-called sockpuppets, like the two above mentioned accounts, have nothing to do with me. I don't know who they are. Many of them were blocked for very little, things which clearly didn't justify indefinite blocks. Several other involved accounts behave exactly the same, if not worse, but they are not even admonished. The point isn't that it's unfair. The point is, this behaviour of the involved admins doesn't make any sense whatsoever. See also [[1]]. --202.120.139.211 (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, it just seemed counter-intuitive at first. Thanks for noting out the tradition :-) --piksi (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me, it's very obvious that DavidPaulHamilton is a sock of someone. All the evidence points to Fnagaton. But, apparently, the evidence I presented at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton isn't convincing enough. Do you know of anything else we could present? I guess the odd mannerisms and writing style are not as obvious to someone who hasn't interacted with him very much, so we need to spell it out more clearly. — Omegatron (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I notice that you had a template entitled "User talk:Jimp/Measurement" deleted this morning. In doing so, though, the template transcluded the CSD request to any pages where it was included, so your Talk Archive II was also listed for deletion. I nowiki'd the template on that page to clear the problem, here, so your talk archive is no longer at risk for deletion. Just an FYI to explain why I was mucking about in your archives. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have unprotected the two templates you named. After you're done, please tell me so that I can re-protect them (since they're high-risk). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bot (User:Lightbot) is running. Lightmouse (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

beaudy. JIMp _talk·cont 07:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked a question of you about which subtemplates to target. If you would be kind enough to give me suggestions, I would appreciate it. Please see Template_talk:Convert#Bot_to_convert_cum_to_m3_within_the_template. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did. Sorry for the delay. JIMp _talk·cont 16:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is fine. Can you also make a comment at Template_talk:Convert#Your_bot_is_damaging_articles. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You asked the question who measures knots to the nearest thousandth of a knot? The answer was the British Admiralty. Trial speeds in knots were always quoted to three decimal places. The figures were calculated as the average of several runs. As for kts this was the normal abbreviation.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a few remaining sq and cu. They are:

• sqm and sqkm. Some of these are in articles or templates that I changed but were changed back.
• combinations such as 'sqft sqm'. I have not been brave enough to create 'sqft m2' but I am sure that is what is required.
• some may be new, possibly due to monobooks.

Take a look. Perhaps we might want to deprecate the ones that have no usage. Lightmouse (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jim,

Can you proof read the following subtemplates:

1. Template:Convert/LoffAonDorSon
2. Template:Convert/LoffAonDorSoff‎
3. Template:Convert/LoffAoffDorSoff‎

They're for using the word or instead of the slash.

((convert|100|ft|m|disp=or)) -->100 feet or 30 metres

Thanks, —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. I know am missing some of the other subtemplates (like Lon), but I'll get to those later. I just wanted to make sure the code on those was correct first. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The codes looked mostly okay. You took the Ds codes and replaced the slash with an "or", right? One change I've made was to have the ***Aon***Son***s redirect to ***Aon***Soff***s since the adjective/noun form distinction is negated when you're using symbols/abbreviations.

You've covered the most useful instances but, yes, there are a few holes yet to fill. To see what I mean look under Or on the pages linked to from here. ... I know; it's huge ... if only I'd had any idea how this thing would expand back in October.

JIMp _talk·cont 03:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoa...

I'll try to filled in what I can based on the Ds codes. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 14:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But wait: there'll be a problem with multiple conversions if we're doing things like this. We'll be getting things like "1.00 tonne or 0.98 long tons/1.10 short tons". This'll be tricky. JIMp _talk·cont 14:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((convert|1.00|nmi|disp=or)) --->1.00 nautical mile or 1.85 kilometres or 1.15 miles

I see. Would this involve some type of #if: in the Convert/multi2... subtemplates? —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some type of something ... JIMp _talk·cont 15:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think the dual output thing could work in the same manner that Template:Convert/multi2table and multi3table work? —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 02:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you had the templates Convert/MMBTU and Convert/MBTU deleted it left two redlinks in the Template:Convert/list of units/energy/Btu that is causing an run onn effect. I had a try at it but it looked as if I was going to make it worse, good job there's a preview button, so I left it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've fixed them, thanks for the reminder. JIMp _talk·cont 03:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Template:Ordomag supposed to be able to accept any expression (e.g., ((ordomag|1*-1)))? It currently fails in this case. If it is supposed to be able to accept this sort of input, I'll add some parentheses to get the order of operations working properly. --- RockMFR 02:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for spotting the error & fixing the template up. JIMp _talk·cont 03:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I would appreciate your comments here and here. Thank you. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added my thripence worth to the page. JIMp _talk·cont 03:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jimp. I nowiki'd two templates on this sandbox page; apparently, the user who created them requested that they be deleted. The result was that your page (and others) were also up for speedy deletion. You shouldn't have any further problem. FYI, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, sometimes I forget to put the delete tags inside noincludes. JIMp _talk·cont 15:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoops! The one you want is now fully unprotected and I've restored the protection for the other one. Sorry about that. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"(the US does not use the imperial system...)" That is not true, the so-called US customary system is just a local variant of the Imperial system, hence it uses yards, miles, feet and inches, which are Imperial units. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect 'US customary units' are another 'freedom fries'-type thing. In my experience saying that the US uses anything but the Imperial system would initially probably yield a laugh, followed by uneasy edging away if you persisted in your delusion. :) I'm not going to argue this, because I know I would deteriorate to petty dismissal of American attitudes (the Germans didn't fight too, why don't they call them Freedom measles?) but I really don't want to get into that, so, in the spirit of preserving peace and serenity on this Wikipedia, I'll take your word for it. (I know you're not American, but I still don't want to get into that.) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You found a draft of something I was working on that got superseded by someone's much better one in mainspace... I've deleted it. Orderinchaos 06:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jimp, I can unprotect Rnd and Rnd/+, but I'd be more comfortable just copying code from your sandbox or wherever into the live template. I'm also leaving this to see if you are currently online...if so, then I'll go ahead and unprotect so you can do your thing. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bah, it is cascade protected, so I couldn't unprotect it if I wanted. Point me to the Rnd and Rnd/+ code and I'll apply manually. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, change applied. Please let me know ASAP if anything looks amiss. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update applied. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the delay, had a call I had to take care of in dispatch. Okay, so problem solved and Ordomag doesn't need updating? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, fix is applied. Anytime you need a protected template fixed, just drop me a line, and it'll be priority one as soon as I see it. I consider Convert that critical and useful ;) And, I got a chuckle from the "no, yes, no..." line, heh. Unless you specifically need them to remain unprotected, I'll go ahead and protect the template sub-pages you created in this effort, even though they are currently protected through the cascade system. That didn't make much sense...I'll go ahead and protect these regardless. As always, very nice work here. I can understand the function of these things once I look at the code, but actually writing them? That's so far beyond me.... — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copy. If you wanted to set up sandbox page that listed all the code I needed to copy, I could to it for you if I'm online. If you have a sorta-kinda timeframe for when that may be, I'll make sure to be around. Also, thank you for working on this change...as mentioned before, I too share the opinion that the number needs to be raise. I have utter confidence, as you are the template king when it comes to this stuff :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hah, that's just fine :) I'm not sure when I'll be waking up (on break from work right now, so I'm enjoying sleeping in), but just leave a message and I'll attack. UFOs bearing tax forms are one thing...be glad they aren't carrying bobcats and velociraptors.... — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimp, sorry I have been away; Comcast services (everything...internet, TV, phone) has been down in my area of town for more than a day...I'm on my University's wireless for a few minutes to send this and check email. I've got their army of trucks rolling around trying to figure out what happened. Heh, apparently everyone around here has grown to just "accept" Comcast's problems, since I was, by their account, the first to report the problem. Sorry, I'm rambling/venting. In any case, once they fix the problem, I'll immediately take care of the updates, if they haven't been done already. Again, sorry. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I think everything is back in order on my end. I see Rnd has been updated by others, however, I'm holding off on protecting the subpages, as there appears to be a significant error generated by something related (as detailed on the Convert talk page). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ISO dates

I just wanted to point out that 1985-04-13 ([[1985-04-13]]) and 13 April 1985 ([[13 April]] [[1985]]) will appear the same way. Every user on Wikipedia can set their preferences to have the date appear whichever way is best for them, and both of those formats will display the date properly automatically. Therefore, there is no reason to go around "fixing" the dates when they will appear correctly regardless of which way they are written (at least in regard to the two methods given above). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you say, "Every user on Wikipedia can set their preferences ..." but we're not only writing for users. Most visitors to the site will be unloggedin. Therefore there is good reason to go around fixing the dates. According to WP:MOSNUM#Dates:

ISO 8601 dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and are generally not used in Wikipedia. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison.

JIMp _talk·cont 02:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the default, whether as an anon IP or a new user who hasn't changed the preference, is to display the dates as "6 July 2008" or "July 6, 2008", so that line really is pointless. As long as you use [[1985-04-13]] or [[13 April]] [[1985]] formatting, the date will display properly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're not logged in, you'll see the raw ISO date. Log out & see for yourself. JIMp _talk·cont 04:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well then, that's just bad programming on MediaWiki's end. The default appearance for people with no account should be the same as someone who has an account but hasn't changed their preferences. Regardless, the dates are perfectly readable and most of the world now lists dates like that. The States are just behind the times. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

←outdent
Bad programming on MediaWiki's end, sure, but we've got to use what we've got. I believe the default appearance for those who have an account but haven't changed their preferences is the same as that for people with no account, i.e. whatever is typed in. I'm not convinced that "most of the world now lists dates like that", however, I don't see the relevance of this. As reflected in the Manual of Style, what's important is how dates are written in English prose. ISO dates are perfectly readable, true, but they are certainly not the norm in written English. Maybe the English language is behind the times but that's the language we're writing in. I'm no fan of the muddled-up American style of writing dates, I prefer day-month-year, but at least they're both normal English. JIMp _talk·cont 平成二十年七月六日十五時四三十分

auto-lemon

Jim—I see you're concerned about the bright-blue underlined splash that goes with the autoformatting function. An equally undesirable aspect for me is that the actual formatting works for only a tiny proportion of readers (us); everyone else cops the blue and the raw formatting, which is often inconsistent within articles because it's concealed from us. TONY (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

programmer-thinking gone mad

I've had a turn-around, too, Jim—from trying to have it fixed to realising that it was stupid and unnecessary at the start. Designing a system that only WPians can see? Ummmmmm. So colour/color we deal with, but 3 January / January 3, we can't? I say this is computer-programmer thinking gone mad! TONY (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps there is no hope for this lemon. One thing it does do is hide problems from WPians. I went and fixed some ISO dates yesterday only to be reverted with the claim that the autoformatting would deal with it anyway. I tried explaining that for most, it won't (details just above); Nihonjoe, are you considering reverting your "correction" of my "improper" fixing of dates? We, the logged-in who've set our date prefs don't see these ISO dates nor inconsistancies unless we're in edit mode. If they wanted to do it properly, it should deal also with spelling and work on IP addresses also. High apple pie in the sky hopes ... JIMp _talk·cont 03:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've recently become aware of this issue too, and just turned off my date preference. I had always assumed that the software chose a sensible default format for anonymous users, not that it would display the date in the form entered. (Duh!) I will never link a date for autoformatting again, if I can help it. I recommend others abandon this turkey of a feature too.--Srleffler (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soon after writing the above post, I turned my preferences off too. If we, the Wikipedians, boycot the broken autoformatting en mass, it might one day be fixed and even if it's never fixed, we'll reduce overlinking and bring inconsistencies & irregularities out into the light where they'll have a chance of being fixed. JIMp _talk·cont 06:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Template Barnstar
		Your hard work very much appreciated in determining the problem with Template:Convert and getting the issue resolved. Londo06 15:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this template is having a problem. Can you look into it? BTW: I am trying to use Convert light year to presec

The display I am getting is

1 megalight-year (0.307 Mpc)

What I want is

1 Mly (0.307 Mpc)

I will appreciate your help. Sumanch (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The parameters lk and abbr control linking and abbreviation (respectively). Try this.

((convert|1|Mly|Mpc|3|lk=on|abbr=on)) → "1 Mly (0.307 Mpc)"

JIMp _talk·cont 05:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes this was what I was looking for. Thank you.

I also made a little change in Template:Convert/±/AonSoff so that it does not display the units twice inside bracket. I left a comment in the talk page. Sumanch (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Jimp! Could you, please, look into this problem? You re-designed the whole thing a while ago, so it would probably take you quicker to fix this than it would be for me to first figure out the whole set-up. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to clean this up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its broken again. ((ft to m|33|66|42))--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Why isn't it working at Portal:Chicago/Selected article/70?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What am I suppose to do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page is not transcluded at the problematic location. What is the problem? Can you fix it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The new code did not fix the problem, I added precision=1 to the template to fix the problem. If I remove it the problem comes back.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jim

MOSNUM doesn't deprecate; it merely no longer encourages lemon. I've already had one person say that it encourages, and had to quote this back at them:

Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text.

This is the stock text I paste in when reviewing FACs and FLCs that are pretty busy with links and could do with some relief from bright-blue-splotch:

It was overlinked (see MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT, so I've reduced some of it [or "removed the date autoformatting] to allow your high-value links to breathe.

Sandy has complained that the guidelines don't mention that the main text of an article should be either all auto-dudded or not at all—no half-way houses. And there's the slight issue of the hard space, which, strictly speaking, I suppose should be inserted between month and day, or day and month. Need to add a recommendation for that, too, at the three relevant pages (MOSNUM, MOSLINK and CONTEXT).

TONY (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS We still have the issue of the cite web template, where the techy guys who maintain it haven't yet managed to make lemon optional on it. This means that just about all reference lists at the bottom of articles have lemon. I don't care about the inconsistency in that respect, and hope that soon we'll sort out the option to switch off lemon from the template. TONY (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PPS, Also, if you cleanse an article, it's best to insert an invisible editors' comment at the top: , to forestall any well-meaning reverter who may come along without knowing the new context. TONY (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jim, you don't know me and I don't know you, since I've never had the pleasure of interacting with you, however I feel that I must thank you for all of the minor corrections which you have made to the mainpage's featured article, in this case "Puerto Ricans in World War II". I truely appreciate your dedication to our project. I wish we had more people like you making positive and contrustive contributions Tony the Marine (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jimp. You have new messages at SQL's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) template.

I'd appreciate it if you could comment here. ––Bender235 (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

subpages

If you have the time could you take a look at the template. Currently the elevation and distances have to be manually converted. Is it possible to adjust it so that the conversions can be done automatically, such as in ((Infobox Settlement)), but without breaking the current system. The current ones could be deprecated and phased out over time. However, because it's an airport it has some strange requirements. For the runway lengths the default should be metres first with feet second with the option to change to feet first for Canada and the US. For the elevation the default should be feet first with metres second and the option for metres first for the few places that do it that way. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure it's possible. One problem though is that the current default seems to be feet first for both. JIMp _talk·cont 06:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you used ((Template talk:Convert/list of units/area)) as a cross reference. That is very handy. Is there a way to do the same thing but linking the cross reference just to a section (not the whole page)? Lightmouse (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:MOSNUM. (sdsds - talk) 10:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for implementing solar masses at Template:convert. Much appreciated! —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Centurynum/m requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]