User talk:Bobblewik/style

Table format

Hello! Ill just cut to the chase here- please stop removing the unit name from numbers in tables. It make is more difficult on the long lists to see which numbers what and requires re-entering units when c&p'ing. I don't, however, have a problem with seperating them into columns- I think thats fine. Also, please don't use that exact table coding- for example these tables do not need a fixed/locked width, and while the 5-segment system has its merits- its difficult to change that code to get proper looking gridlines. (at least with my knowledge of code). I appreciate your 'grudge' work on all these rather un-exciting units, but I would much prefer conversions, etc. then these kind of formating things. Good luck on your units work! Greyengine5 03:16, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello again! By 5-segment I just meant leaving out gridlines and just putting a line across every 5 rows on the Skyscraper page. That code for that particular case (and for a couple others) also had a fixed/locked with, which wrap lines before there needed to be in many cases. While the tables do look nicer, and cleaning up pages is very noble work, the pages are harder to work with and to read. Looking across is harder without gridlines and requires more double checking to make sure your in the right column. With no units attached to the numbers, they have to be re-added when cut&pasteing and cross checked to make sure the right numbers are witht the right units. Also, when your looking down a column to know what spec is there you have to look across and check more often to see what the category is, whereas when the units are there its much easier. Once again, please stop changing the tables in this way as it creates difficulty with these tables. I do fully appreciate your work on units (being time consuming, etc.)- just not quite in this form. Greyengine5 04:21, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh I didn't mean to restrict yourself to unit conversions. It was just the practice of stripping units off numbers on those tables. For most tables the 5-segments system is probably just as good as full gridlines so thats not such big deal. On some of those pages (the longer lists)I added an alternating gray/white backround, as a alternative to gridlnes. I can understand gridlines, which, while handy, can be a mixed bag in how the table looks. Also, I dont have a problem with seperating the data into seperate columns like you'v done. The code thing is minor as thats easy to remove- not being an expert on code either-I think its was ' width=40% ' or something like that. So just to re-hash, the main thing was the units/numbers issue and more rather then less gridlines (which the best number for is always bit subjective anyway). Greyengine5 17:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removing visible user instruction notes

Hi Bobblewick- may I ask why you are removing visible user instruction messages from pages like List of musicians in the first wave of punk music etc? As a person who spent lots of time and sore fingers alphabeticising some of these otherwise totally randomly ordered lists I think it's better that editors are reminded to insert their new contributions in the correct place rather than just stuck on the end of what is already there. Maybe there is a policy on this now that I missed (I used to be very active but only dip in now and again these days), but I'll post this message to village pump as well in case anyone else wants to discuss quercus robur 19:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spelling

Both the "metre" and "meter" spelling of the units, and "litre" and "liter", and their multiples and subdivisions, are acceptable spellings. You can change them to make usage within an article consistent; changing them just for the sake of change is likely to piss people off.

• The corollary is that if you add something in which the existing spelling is consistent, follow that spelling.

This of course applies to many other spelling variants, such as "honor" or "honour", "carcass" or "carcase", etc.

Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. I usually resist the temptation. In the case of a specific article on units, I thought that the 're' spelling was accepted, but perhaps not. As you suggest, it is better to avoid holy wars on spelling. It does not worry me too much. Perhaps I should have left it unchanged. Mea culpa.

Same goes for the symbols "l" and "L"—see litre. Gene Nygaard 14:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I know about the two options of 'l'/'L' symbols.

Incidentally, I was interested in your suggestion that wing loading should be in force units. I had never thought of it like that and it makes some sense. I see that you have reverted some of your changes but it was interesting to question it. In any case, I think that it is redundant for aircraft articles to state a measure that is merely the ratio of two other measures already stated. Most readers don't care, and those that do care can calculate the ratio from the information provided. Wing loading and power to weight ratio are examples in that category. My main concern was to see SI units rather than 'kgf'. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik  (talk) 15:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Order and parentheses

I calculated it off google. I wouldn't let anyone give you trouble on how they are ordered, as most native english speakers use english units anyway -its just a matter of catering to the majority. Aside from that, which comes first is not very significant to readabilty. Greyengine5 23:13, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

space characters

Hi Bobblewik,

I've noticed that you have spent a considerable amount of time placing spaces between numbers and units of measurements on many pages to do with sport and now I have read the section relating to this Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) I see that a space is not the correct way around this but in fact a non-breaking space should be used as in 25 lb and not 25 lb or 25lb. Just thought if you were going to continue with doing this it might be an idea to stick to the Manual of Style otherwise the use of a space is as incorrect as no space.Scraggy4 21:02, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I didn't know that the manual of style said that. It is a lot more effort but I might try it sometime.
Bobblewik 21:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I added the recommendation. It means that (a) an awkward line wrap can't separate a number from its unit; and (b) you can put units in tables without the risk that the units will wrap when the table is squashed. For example, the tables at Skyscraper looked very bad before I inserted a bunch of   just now. However, it's just a recommendation: use an ordinary space if its convenient. Gdr 00:40, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Hi, I've answered your question on my talk page. <KF> 11:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And I've done it again. <KF> 11:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi again Bobblewik - I've recently had a question in relation to WP Aircraft about spaces before imperial units. I've taken a look at the Wikipedia conventions, which suggest a space (ie, "25 ft" over "25ft"). Do you know of a standard outside Wikipedia that spells this convention out? Just taking care to cross the t's and dot the i's... --Rlandmann 13:33, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ISO 31-0 and the UK equivalent BS 5775 apparently recommend a space before the unit, but I have not seen the original text of either. I also find the recommendation in:

• US NIST publication 811
• US NIST checklist
• UK NPL
• IEE guide
• misc.metric-system faq

The scope of the references certainly includes metric units. Whether the authors would recommend the same format for non-metric units is unclear to me. It may be implicit in the IEE reference and the unseen ISO and BS references. I would be surprised if any respectable author/editor would specifically want all copy to have spaces before metric units but not before imperial units. However, to answer your specific question, I am not aware that the recommendation for a space includes imperial units.

Bobblewik 15:31, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm really happy that you're inserting metric units into so many articles! One suggestion, though: Can you use the &nbsp; before your units like the style manual suggests? It really does look nicer. Thanks again! --SFoskett 20:51, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the spaces to the Jaguar engine articles, but can you please use non-breaking spaces instead? That is the standard, and it makes the articles look much better. Or just let me know (for automobile articles at least) and I'll do it for you. --SFoskett 13:50, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that they should be there. They are on my list of 'good things' that should be universal on Wikipedia. I remember our previous discussion in September. I admit to being reticent about non-breaking spaces being on my extensive list of things that I do, but I support your campaign for them. My reticence is partly because some people are hostile to metric units and I sometimes want to keep the changes minimal to reduce the chances of my whole edit being reverted. I sometimes put a remark in the comment field if I add spaces, I will try to do this more often so that you can examine my edit history. I am sure that you do as I do, and search for terms like '35mm' and '7.62mm' in need of spaces. If you don't, then perhaps you might like to try. In any case, keep up the good work. Bobblewik  (talk) 19:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moving articles that need space characters in the name

I saw on the pump that you've been moving pages with cut-n-paste. I'm going through your history to correct those (got to do something to justify having admin status). So you'll probably see me popping up a lot on your watchlist. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes I have. The purpose was to bring article titles in line with the Manual of style guidance on having spaces before unit symbols e.g. '9 mm' rather than '9mm'. When you say 'correct' what I did, do you mean revert what I did? Bobblewik  (talk) 20:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I mean merge the page histories so they're all in one place. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah. I knew about the redirect isssue, but was unaware of the history issue. Thanks for that. I appreciate your help. Bobblewik  (talk) 20:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think I've fixed them all. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. You are a great help. Thank you. Bobblewik  (talk) 21:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

16mm film and 35mm film done. You could have moved 16mm film yourself, MediaWiki allows for page moves over redirects given that 1) the redirect points at the page being moved; 2) the redirect has only one entry in its history. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought that I had tried and failed to move 16mm. However, I can't remember anymore. Anyway thanks for the good tip, I will do that next time. And thanks for moving them. Bobblewik  (talk) 18:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nonbreaking space

There is no general rule that you need to keep a measurement from breaking at the end of the line between the number and the unit of measure. There are times when it is desirable to put in that nbsp, but the considerations then are the same for English units as they are for metric units.

Some further thoughts on this:

• I don't follow any hard and fast rules, it's mostly common sense.
• You might want to do it, for example, when talking about a "3 A fuse"; it won't result in any ugly gap at the end of the line.
• You might want to do it if the measurement is at the end of a paragraph; if the line is going to break anyway, it might as well include the number too.
• You might want to do it in tables which include dual measurements in two different systems of units, to force any break between the two different systems rather than within one of them
• It is important to use it to keep from having breaks within the number, as when numbers are written in the 1 234 567.89 kg format (Wikipedia Style Guide says use commas in these numbers, however).
• It is important to keep from having breaks within the components of the unit of measure, e.g. 234 W m^-1 K^-1.
• It is much preferred to allow a break between the number and the symbol than either of the last two cases.
  

Gene Nygaard 15:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It used to be the case that I did not use nbsp. My priority has always been to get the metric units there. It is a nice to have if the break is not between the number and the symbol. However, I got so many requests for nbsp from people that I decided to use it, even though it requires more effort. This was on the basis that some of those people would support metric values if done in that way. That extra effort is certainly something I can give up quite happily.

Your thoughts are illuminating. I had not thought about it in that detail but what you say makes sense to me. Now that you have brought it to my attention, I may modify the way that I use nbsp. Thanks. Bobblewik  (talk) 16:05, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why, but my browser is breaking the above 234 W m^-1 K^-1 after the W when I few this. Strange! Okay, I maybe figured it out; it just did that when I was viewing the "differences" page, not when I view it normally.

But in any case, it did remind me of something else; using &minus; will keep it from splitting between the negative sign and the number, which may not matter in the case of these superscripts but is a good thing to keep in mind with negative temperatures, for example. Looks better, too, when there is a difference. Gene Nygaard 16:58, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Double spaces in html source

You are probably wasting your time worrying about extra spaces in html; it usually doesn't make any difference anyway (if you want extra spaces, you can use &nbsp; for hard spaces.

Yes I know that html does not show double spaces. With html pages, I sometimes paste the text into a word processor and run a spell checker. Eliminating double spaces is something that I do without thinking. It is a carry-over from checking non-html copy. I do it by global search and replace so it doesn't take much effort. As you suggest, it does not add much value so it is an expendable activity.

Comma versus space (87,924 versus 87 924)

Hi Bobblewik, i just noticed your changes to the athletics pages re: 1500m vs 1500 m. Excellent changes, I find this typo a lot too and try and fix it when I can. I have a nother issue too. I have a tendancy not to use a comma for a four unit number i.e. 1500 m or 5000 m races. For longer races I have a preference to use a space, i.e 10 000 m not 10,000 m. What is the convention with regard to the use of a comma? David D. 20:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the space is mentioned in a standard as an internationally accepted thousand separator but I can't recall where. The problem with the comma is that it is regional, some regions use the period for thousands and the comma for decimals. I am also quite happy with your preference for 4 digits without comma. However, I have plenty of people complaining about the addion of metric units and I don't want to adopt style conventions that might give people more reason to be hostile to my changes. What you say makes sense to me and I support you if you want to raise it for discussion or make edits to articles in the way you describe. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik  (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

"Very large numbers, such as pinball scores, should be divided up by commas every three places. (Note that this is different from SI notation where a thin space is used every three places.)" from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Rmhermen 15:24, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Rmhermen, I went to the style manual and discovered the following in addition to what you write above. In scientific contexts, scientific notation is preferred. The implication is that the thin space is for science only (possibly explains my preference for that style). This is confirmed when looking at the examples for larger numbers (big but not as big as pinball numbers) I found the following:

The hippopotamus stands 1.5 m (5 ft) at the shoulders and weighs between 2,700 and 4,500 kg (425–710 st or 6,000–9,900 lb).

The [[hippopotamus]] stands [[1 E0 m|1.5&nbsp;m]] (5&nbsp;ft) at the shoulders and weighs between [[Orders of magnitude (mass)|2,700 and 4,500&nbsp;kg]] (425&ndash;710&nbsp;st or 6,000&ndash;9,900&nbsp;lb).

Given this information, and despite my preference for 10 000 m (note thin space used as suggested in the style manual), the correct style is 10,000 m. My preference is 1500 m although the style manual suggests 1,500 m. Thanks for your help on clearing this up.

I might add that I had to edit the 1984 olympics page since all the results were in ft inches ONLY (the 1988 olympics still needs to be edited). This is really bizarre since the original distances were measured and published in metric. The author must have converted them all to imperial and then cut out the metric version. I understand that wikipedia is probably dominated by imperial centric users from the U.S., but there is no need to remove the metric version when these conversions are made. Excuse the rant. David D. 22:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hyphens and dashes

Hi Bobblewik. I noticed you removed several hyphens from Boeing 777. I was not able to find official Wiki Style advice on hyphenation of compound adjectives, but Compound noun, adjective and verb#Hyphenated compound adjectives covers it pretty well. For example, I think "large-scale," as an adjective, should be hyphenated. A quick Google query finds that usage dominates in Wikipedia [1]. I have also noticed that a lot of engineering print media consistently hyphenates number+unit combos when used as adjectives, e.g. "two 75,000-lb. Rolls Royce Trent 875s." Maybe there are examples to the contrary? —Fleminra 01:07, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

People have a range of views on hyphens. Many references suggest that people use hyphens more frequently than they deserve.

• The Times styleguide

generally be sparing with hyphens and run together words where the sense suggests and where they look familiar and right; eg, blacklist, businessman, goldmine, knockout, intercontinental, motorcycle, takeover, and walkover. Unusual hyphenations will be listed separately in this Style Guide. However, a few guidelines can be specified:

• usually run together prefixes except where the last letter of the prefix is the same as the first letter of the word to which it attaches: prearrange, postwar, prewar, nonconformist; but pre-empt, co-ordinate, co-operate, re-establish.

• hyphenate generally in composites where the same two letters come together, eg, film-makers, but an exception should be made for double r in the middle: override, overrule (not over-ride etc), and note granddaughter and goddaughter.

• generally do not use dangling hyphens - say full and part-time employment etc; but this does not apply to prefixes - pre- or post-match drinks.

• always use a hyphen rather than a slash (/) in dates etc - 1982-83 (not 1982/83)

• when they are used to qualify adjectives, the joining hyphen is rarely needed, eg, heavily pregnant, classically carved, colourfully decorated. But in some cases, such as well-founded, ill-educated, the compound looks better with the hyphen. The best guidance is to use the hyphen in these phrases as little as possible or when the phrase would otherwise be ambiguous

• The American Psychological Association

Do not use a hyphen unless it serves a purpose. If a compound adjective cannot be misread or, as with many psychological terms, its meaning is established, a hyphen is not necessary. For example

• covert learning techniques
• health care reform
• day treatment program
• sex role differences
• grade point average

In a temporary compound that is used as an adjective before a noun, use a hyphen if the term can be misread or if the term expresses a single thought (i.e., all words together modify the noun).

For example: “the adolescents resided in two parent homes” means that two homes served as residences, whereas if the adolescents resided in “two-parent homes,” they each would live in a household headed by two parents.

A properly placed hyphen helps the reader understand the intended meaning.

Most compound adjective rules are applicable only when the compound adjective precedes the term it modifies. If a compound adjective follows the term, do not use a hyphen, because relationships are sufficiently clear without one.

• Guardian style guide

Hyphens tend to clutter up text (particularly when the computer breaks already hyphenated words at the end of lines).... Do use hyphens where not using one would be ambiguous, eg to distinguish "black-cab drivers come under attack" from "black cab-drivers come under attack". Do not use after adverbs ending in -ly, eg politically naive, wholly owned, but hyphens are needed with short and common adverbs, eg ill-prepared report, hard-bitten hack, much-needed grammar lesson, well-established principle of style (note though that in the construction "the principle of style is well established" there is no need to hyphenate). Finally, do use hyphens to form compound adjectives, eg two-tonne vessel, three-year deal, 19th-century artist

• Current Science journal

‘The hyphen has a number of uses, most of them confusing’... ‘If you take the hyphen seriously, you will surely go mad’. Even Fowler’s Modern English Usage (ELBS and Oxford University Press) is harsh on the hyphen, quoting Winston Churchill’s famous dictum: ‘One must regard the hyphen as a blemish to be avoided as far as possible’. In protesting against the hyphen, Churchill argued ‘that you may run them together or leave them apart, except when nature revolts’

I also found this nice phrase

Wouldn't the sentence 'I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chip sign' have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?

Many references that say that numbers and unit symbols should be separated by a space not a hyphen. This applies even when used as an adjective as in the example "75,000 lb Rolls Royce Trent 875s". I am fairly consistent in applying this particular guideline. However, I am not too worried tabout the other guidelines for compound adjectives, so feel free to revert them as you think best.

Thanks for your feedback.

Bobblewik 10:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hyphens in names

Moving BMW 3-Series to BMW 3 Series

Was there some discussion on this move that I missed? I was surprised to see this series of page moves... What's next, Mercedes-Benz S-Class? --SFoskett 00:10, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. This seems really abrupt and affects a ton of pages—doubly so on all the double redirects this has caused. --Milkmandan 03:59, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

Moving 'BMW n-Series' to 'BMW n Series' seems unremarkable to me. But it clearly is not to you. Feel free to move them back, I won't object. Bobblewik  (talk) 17:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To the contrary, I feel that the new name (no hyphen) is more correct than the old convention. However, we should have discussed it somewhere, and now have lots of work to fix the remaining pages. --SFoskett 18:10, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Aha, I will think twice about how to handle similar changes in future. Thanks for letting me know. Bobblewik  (talk) 18:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed the 8 Series (which seemed to have been missed) and the double redirects on all these pages. For future reference, double redirects actually break some of the Wikipedia functionality and it's expected that whoever moves the page will clean them up. --Milkmandan 18:53, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

I didn't know that double directs break functionality. I thought that they were merely inefficient. I have learnt something today. Thanks for pointing this out. I have been looking at 'What links here' to see double redirects and have done some, but now I see what a big job I have created.... Bobblewik  (talk) 19:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Please see your diff here: [2] You did some good unit changes, but you changed every en-dash to "to". And you unlinked a lot of years. Might want to check your units script or whatever's doing this work. :) --Golbez 14:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not an automated process. It is all done by hand. The priority was the unit changes. Whilst I was there I did some changes that are of secondary importance to me such as removing low added value links such as years and replacing '-' with 'to'. If you disagree with these changes of secondary importance, feel free to revert them and leave it with the unit changes. I can discuss my reasoning about these secondary changes with you if you like but perhaps it would be better in a more generic place such as the manual of style talk pages (where misunderstanding about date links are discussed frequently). Many thanks. Bobblewik 15:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

So far as I know, it's still accepted style here to use en-dashes in date ranges, particularly "born/died" dates. Isn't it? --Golbez 15:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, it is accepted. I just happen to prefer an alternate style that is also accepted. I took a look at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Ranges. It is often preferable to write this out (for example, "4 to 7" or "four through seven") to avoid confusion with "four minus seven". That encapsulates my thoughts on it. Although dates are not arithmetic, my style is to avoid dashes with numbers.

Providing low added value links to dates is more of a concern. I happen to think that is actually a 'bad thing'. The dashes thing is just my style preference. No big deal. Bobblewik 15:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hyphens and en dashes

Hi! Can you please come and check out User:Chocolateboy's comments on the current hyphens vs. en dashes guideline on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)? I have not been here long enough to understand the issue, and a solution must be found quickly. He says that this manual and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) are inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia, or something like that; I need to look up past discussions to figure out what's going on. A revert war depends on your assistance! lol, well there are less dramatic ways of putting it. Thanks. Neonumbers 23:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I will take a look. Hold on. Bobblewik 23:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Plurals of unit symbols

Aloha. A few times I've run across your conversions of units of measure, and have been finding it helpful. The one thing that sticks out, though, is when you use the abbreviation for pound (lb). When using it in the plural (e.g. 155 pounds) it's supposed to have the "s" at the end (155 lbs). Typically you've been leaving this off, but on the page Aurora Snow you removed an "s" that was already there. I've added it in the few cases I've seen. Please keep this in mind, and continue the good work! Sahasrahla 20:17, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

This topic occasionally crops up. I am not aware of any references that say units of measurement should be suffixed with an 's' in the plural. There are a few that say they should not, including the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers): yd for yard (not yds), mi for mile, lb for pound (not lbs). If we do it for lb, we would need to do it for kg to be consistent. It is common to see 'lbs' but it is by no means the default. However, I do appreciate you discussing it with me. Bobblewik  (talk) 20:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowlege, the rule is inconsistent. In metric, the unit abbreviations are the same for singular and plural, and the same is true for most common Imperial units, with the exception of the pound -- possibly because the abbreviation for the pound was borrowed from the French, while the full name is English. --Carnildo 21:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Bobblewick. There are some style guides which tolerate either. The ones which only accept one almost universally insist on lb (including the Wikipedia Manual of Style and the U.S. GPO Style Manual 2000). I can't think of any which insist on adding an s in the plural. English borrowed the symbol from Latin, not from the French livre (which might have used the Latin symbol as well--and in Latin there is no s in the plural. Another problem with "lbs" is that the people who use is are indiscriminate, using it for the pound-force as well as the mass unit, and thus not properly distinguishing lbf (you don't see lbfs, and maybe rarely lbsf which is more likely to be somebody's usage for pounds per square foot). Gene Nygaard 21:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suppose all I can reply with is in 12 years of math classes, if I didn't add the s, it was completely wrong. heh heh Perhaps this is purely a New England thing. We tend to do things differently. Sahasrahla 00:58, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Not just New England. I was schooled the same way in the Midwest. lbs. not lb Rmhermen 02:49, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

unit symbols with each value

Just in case you are starting on another tear, I want to make sure you are aware of the recommendations of NIST in http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec07.html#7.7

• ... Thus, to avoid possible confusion, this Guide takes the position that values of quantities must be written so that it is completely clear to which unit symbols the numerical values of the quantities belong....
• Examples: 51 mm × 51 mm × 25 mm but not: 51 × 51 × 25 mm
  • 225 nm to 2400 nm or (225 to 2400) nm but not: 225 to 2400 nm
    

Gene Nygaard 16:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. I was not aware of that recommendation. I don't entirely agree, but I will take note. I am glad to see that it also recommends the use of 'to' for ranges. Bobblewik  (talk) 18:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Precision

You added several metric equivalents to Las Vegas. I removed one: where the Strip is described as a "four and a half mile stretch of Las Vegas Boulevard", you added "(800 m)". Now, I'm no metrics maven, but I've walked up and down the Strip a fair amount, and it's longer than 800 m. I would've just changed it myself but I don't know what conventions you and others follow about rounding (since the "four and a half mile" figure is obviously somewhat inexact, how many significant digits should the metric equivalent use?). JamesMLane 01:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Four and a half miles is one and a half significant digits. The metric equivalent would be seven and a half kilometers. --Carnildo 04:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the error, James. And thanks for suggesting a number of significant digits, Carnido. I scanned the text and saw "a half mile stretch" and converted that. There is only one significant digit in 0.5 miles so I put 800 m. If I had read the text correctly, I would have read "four and a half miles" as "4.5 miles". Thus I would convert it to '7.2 km'.

Incidentally, metrication is part science and part art. Matching significant digits is a useful guide, but it is not the only one. As Carnido suggests, the "half mile" may suggest a granularity of 0.5 miles. The measured value might be in the range of 4.25 to 4.75 miles (6.8 to 7.6 km). The metric writer might simply say that the Strip is '7 km' long.

In case you do not already know, you may wish to know that Google has an excellent converter tool. I use it frequently. Simply do a 'Search' on: four and a half miles.

I will leave it up to you to put whatever conversion you think is best. I am glad you guys drew it to my attention. Bobblewik  (talk) 12:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

UPPER CASE versus lower case

War on terrorism v War on Terrorism

Please do not change the names of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medals. These medals has been ofifically named by the Institute of Heraldry with Terrorism capitilized. I have had to revert your changes on a few occasions. Also, changing the name titles breaks the links. -Husnock 6Feb05

Hmmm. I have no issue with the medal names, so that is a mystery that I should have changed them. I can't see those pages on my contributions list so that is a further mystery. Can you tell me where I can see that it was me that changed them? Bobblewik  (talk) 20:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The were changed in the War on terrorism article. No big deal. I just wanted to let you know IOH has them listed with capital letters. Thanks! -Husnock

Ah yes. I see that I did change them. I changed instances of 'War on Terrorism' to 'War on terrorism'. The medal references were unintentionally included. Sorry. I was not aware of the Institute of Heraldry till now, that is a useful source. Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention. Bobblewik  (talk) 19:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

General specifications v General Specifications

I notice that you've been altering things like General Specifications in the USS Eisenhower article to General specifications instead. Please stop doing that. They are headings, ie titles. That means that they should follow the rules for capitalization of titles. Within a title, unless it is massively long, only minor words do not start with a capital letter. I certainly would not describe specifications as a minor word. It should therefore start with a capital letter in a title. David Newton 01:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Having reviewed the Manual of Style, I see that you are following it. Given that I think I need to find out the 'logic' behind the Manual of Style's prescriptions. They are incorrect in normal English language useage. David Newton 01:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Windsurfer boards v Windsurfer Boards

I understand why you are editing the names of Templates to have the first word in uppercase and subsequent words in the Template name in lower case. .....But why are you editing the text inside the Template using the same rule. ie A proper noun such as Windsurfer Boards is not correct if changed to Windsurfer boards (ie Which Windsurfer do you want the reader to board?!). Appreciate your feedback. Thanks Boatman 17:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. You are correct to suggest that I am applying the same rule to both i.e. 'lower case initial letters for common nouns'. The term 'windsurfer board' is used to denote a class of objects (common noun), such as 'saloon car' or 'username' rather than a particular object (proper noun) such as 'Ford Focus' or 'Boatman'. If 'Windsurfer Board' is a brand name, then it would indeed be a proper noun. Perhaps I misunderstand something here. Bobblewik  (talk) 17:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ice hockey v Ice Hockey

I saw that you moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice hockey. Unfortunately, you didn't move any of the sub pages with it (so all the blue links turned red). I have moved it back for the sake of those links. I have no problem with renaming the project for case sensitivity but if you do decided in the future to move it back, please make sure you move all the sub pages too. Kevin Rector 15:42, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry about that. I should have checked the links. I think I will leave it unless I have time to do the sub pages. Thanks for letting me know. Bobblewik  (talk) 20:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

General characteristics v General Characteristics

We seem to be beginning to engaged in a somewhat extended timeframe revert war over General Chracteristics vs General characteristics in the ship table template that I have designed. I am following long-standing practice in the Ships wikiproject in the capitalisation of the table. It could be argued that the changes to the table I have made to include the Propulsion and power, Sensors and processing systems and Electronic warfare and decoys rows is inconsistent in that respect. I think it would probably be a good idea to say about those on the Wikiproject talk page to see what people think about the capitalisation issue.

However, you are again engaged in your incorrect alteration of titles which should have capital letters on all but minor words to only a capital letter on the first word and lower case on the rest. As I have said before, that is incorrect in normal English usage, and so it should not be in the policy of the Wikipedia. I did look over the archives of how that recommendation came into being and it does seem to be the arbitrary decision of a couple of users who appear not to know what they are talking about.

I do not have a right to demand that you stop editing the table in this fashion. However I would ask that you stop doing it please.

That said, I greatly appreciate your efforts to update the templates for ships I have created using only imperial values with the appropriate metric values. That is a very valuable service that you provide for the Wikipedia which is under-rated. David Newton 16:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of the style that you prefer and I did not notice that we were reverting each other. I also appreciate your work and do not want to get into a style war with you of all people. Perhaps we should debate this in the Manual of Style and I hope that we can both learn a bit more from each other about the merits of each style. The Manual of Style supports my style but, as you suggest, some of the recommendations can be arbitrary. My current priority is improving the use of units. I frequently make non-unit edits but they are usually of secondary priority.

In the interest of cooperation, I will do as you ask. So feel free to implement your own preference and/or undo any changes that I have made to capitals in ship articles. Thanks for the feedback expressed so kindly. Bobblewik  (talk) 18:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In any case, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) deals specifically with the headings which divide an article into sections, not these headings. Gene Nygaard 18:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quidditch

The bot has moved around some articles that had Quidditch capitalized, I don't really understand why, as I think it was fine to have Quidditch capitalized. Can you explain the reasoning for this? EvilPhoenix 06:51, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

That was no bot, it was me. I checked: the Wikipedia Manual of Style; the use of capitals in other articles; the use of capitals in game articles. I concluded that 'quidditch' is not supposed to have capitals. So I was bold with my edits and edited the article names. Bobblewik  (talk) 08:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

StarCraft storyline template sentence case

When you altered the document, you broke many links. Wikipedia links are case-sensitive, after all. You also did not consistently alter the links with the word "prehistory" in them.

If you really feel you need to alter the sentence structure, alter it like this: ((StarCraft Secret Missions|StarCraft secret missions)). Otherwise you'll just break the links again.

All of the templates I have seen use lots of capitals, however, so it's probably best if the template is left alone. Kimera757 16:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not intend to break the links. Bobblewik  (talk) 16:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sentence case (British guns/Guns)

So far as I can tell, Gun (capital-G0 is part of the weapons title, I am making the British guns more consistent, and I've found a few others that need listing/articlesGraemeLeggett 14:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Controller Area Network

Your summary:

If you would like to link to the articles, then here they are

Unlike you, I guess, I don't have a problem with redirects. You should also note that I created the articles, so you need not get testy. Cburnett 05:26, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

After I did the edit, I saw that you created the articles. It was not intended as a testy comment, it was meant to be polite and helpful. Assume good faith and keep up the good work. Bobblewik  (talk) 05:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. :) Cburnett 05:42, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Metrification Request

Greetings, Bobblewik!
Before I nominate it as a FAC, would you be so kind as to metrify the measurements in my article Warren County Canal? PedanticallySpeaking 16:17, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Done. I frequently use the excellent google converter to metricate measurements. Simply search for '20 ft' and see what happens. You may wish to try it sometime. I hope I did what you wanted. Thanks. Bobblewik  (talk) 16:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Please restore the templates you have moved around. I have been working on them for a month and they are incomplete, when complete you will understand why they are seperate. Thanks. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh you changed the name of it, nevermind. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unlike edits, the move function does not permit me to add a comment. If it did, I would have left one. A while back, I suggested on the village pump that comments would be useful for 'move'. I would be delighted if you mentioned it there, perhaps others will think it would be useful. I will back you up. Bobblewik  (talk) 14:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a chart that has a comparasion of OR (enlisted) ranks of countries like Slovenia (latest nato adds) ? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aha! That is what 'OR' means. I could not work it out. I thought perhaps it just meant 'or' as in 'and/or'. It didn't make any sense to me. Do you think you could use a more explicit name?

Unfortunately, I don't have any chart like the one you are seeking. Bobblewik  (talk) 14:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

iPod shuffle model names

Please note the 512MB and 1GB are model names proper of iPod shuffle as per the Apple website. I am reverting your changes to the iPod article now. — Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  23:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. I see that the Apple website does write it like that. Bobblewik  (talk) 10:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bits vs. bytes

KB/MB is usually BYTES, much less commonly bits. Mirror Vax 12:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you did. You went by the capitalization of the "b". While that is a common convention among computer cognoscenti, many people are unaware of it, and will use "b" to mean byte. Mirror Vax 13:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You are correct in assuming that I went by the lower case 'b'. I know that 'MB' should mean megabyte. Where people put 'Mb' to mean megabit, I have been changing it explicitly to 'Mbit'. In many cases, the error is obvious to me. In this case I was not sure, so perhaps I should have left it alone. Thanks for examining it and putting it right. Bobblewik  (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It is my opinion that this is a useful and appropriate technique is the disambiguation of many units of measure, and in other cases as well. Just take a stab at what might be correct. Once the existence of the ambiguity has been pointed out, those who know the details can sort it out, and will be quite likely to correct you if you have guessed wrong. Without pointing it out, however, the ambiguity may linger for a long time. Just a little philosophosizing on my part. Gene Nygaard 15:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

A rule of thumb is that computer memory and disk storage is in bytes (except when speaking of individual memory chips, which are usually specified in bits). Communication speed is usually in bits per second. Mirror Vax 15:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Links

Linking dates

I am reverting a bunch of your recent changes. Stop unlinking dates. Dates have to be wikified in the form MM DD, YY for the user preference to work. If you remove the link from the year it does not function. Rmhermen 19:37, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Yikes. I was not aware that there is association between links. That certainly makes Wikipedia code much less WYSIWYG. All I saw was multiple individual year links. I am a bit distressed that I put in all that effort on articles listed in the topbanana report of multiple identical links. Sigh. Bobblewik  (talk) 19:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Any chance you could help me restore them. My connection is very slow today and you did I number of non-date lists. Rmhermen 19:54, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

I see. That's a lot of just asteroid pages. Any chance you could go through and relink just the dates. I am going to stop reverting (I did maybe the first ten.) I am not sure how you edited the link out. Is there a fast way to return the year linkage? Rmhermen 20:00, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

I will help correct things. It may be simplest just to do reverts. However, can we put a hold on it for just now? I am about to go off line, hopefully for most of the weekend, and I also would like to mention this over at the village pump. If Wikipedia is starting to make software connections between links that are not visible to editors, that is something I want to understand a bit more. I also want a bit of time to mourn my futile contributions. :-(

I made the edits with search and replace in MS Word. Putting them back is only a little more difficult. I think I did about 200 articles, each article had several different words that were repeated. So it is a *lot* of work. To be honest, I don't regard linked dates as particularly valuable to readers. But I understand that you are not debating the merits of it, merely that my edits stopped it working.

It might make it a bit easier for me to swallow if you would make a comment in support of my call for a bot at Wikipedia:Bot requests to fix multiple links to the same article. I am sure it could be designed to handle dates correctly. Then we could just revert all the articles and leave it to the bot to sort out. Thanks.

Bobblewik  (talk) 20:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the extra links to the discoverors and Democrat/Republican, etc. I don't know anything about building bots so I don't know how easy this would be. The years need to be link so that when someone chooses a user preference for one of the two YY-MM--DD formats the links get displayed correctly. This feature has been around for a while (proposed June, 2003 - I couldn't find when it went live.) I, too, am going off-line now. Rmhermen 20:45, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I did one revert to demonstrate good intent before going off line. I think I will have to accept that reverting them all is what must happen. Yes, I have seen people discussing date preferences but didn't pay enough attention to realise that it had this effect. I am sure the feature won't go away, it is me that must be rewired. Bobblewik  (talk) 21:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I had a fast connection today. I think I reverted all of them. Sorry to see so much work lost though. I think a one link per screen for things other than dates would be good in general. Rmhermen 13:07, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I am also sorry to see that work lost too. I support a policy that limits excessive linking. People should consider the number of links per article/screen and the value of links to the reader. Linking every instance of a possible link seems too mechanistic. The 'featured articles' that I have seen tend to be more sensible about links. Your suggestion seems fine to me. Bobblewik  (talk) 14:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Multiple links to the same target

In many of the articles where you are removing multiple links, you are making the articles much worse. Please revert the bad changes. Wikipedia:Offline reports/This page links many times to the same article is not a list of errors to fix; many instances of multiple links to the same article are deliberate and useful.

Please pay attention to the request on Wikipedia:Offline reports/This page links many times to the same article#Do not blindly remove multiple links that says "Before you remove links, please think about whether your change will make the article easier or more difficult to use". I added that request after the previous time you made many articles more difficult to use.

For example, in List of Members of the European Parliament 2004-2009, after your edit dated 20:42 11 Nov 2004, it is now much more difficult than before to find information about the parties. Previously, in the entry for Guy Bono on that page, one could just click the obvious link to "PES". Now, one might think that "PES" is not linked at all (although "ALDE" on the line immediately above is linked). Or, if one knows how the article has been damaged, then one can scroll around searching for a link to "PES", but how many users will know to do that, and of them, how many will like it? The same applies to almost all the articles that contain tables in which the cells are links. —AlanBarrett 21:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Please assume good intent. I think the articles are better without repeated links, otherwise I would not have edited them. If you think that repeating links once per screen is reasonable, then I can understand that. It would mean that the 814 links to LINEAR in the asteroid article would be 25. The Manual of Style has a generous guideline of 10% links per article. My edits brought the percentage down in the article you mention from 59% to 51%. It is still overlinked. If you are unhappy with what I did, just go ahead and revert them. Bobblewik  (talk) 23:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In ordinary paragraphs of text, 10% links seems like a reasonable limit. In tables, such as those in the asteroid articles and the politicians article I mentioned before, I think it's useful for every cell to be linked. I think the difference is in how the article is used: paragraphs are usually read from beginning to end, so linking a term more than once in a paragraph is pointless (the reader will already have seen the first link by the time they get to the second link); but tables are often searched to find a particular entry of interest, and the reader might easily ignore everything outside the one entry of interest, so it's useful if the entry of interest has links for all the useful terms. —AlanBarrett 19:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Over-linking

Hi Bobblewik: Thank you for your attention to Longburton. I am impressed by your commitment to consistent units of measurement. I am disappointed by the extent of your link removals, however. I can see that the Longburton artticle was over-linked but I do not understand all your eliminations. Please explain their basis so that I may improve my style. --Theo (Talk) 21:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You will find guidance about links in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). My changes were more or less in line with that. I also take inspiration from the style of articles that appear in [Wikipedia:Featured articles]. To be more specific, in the case of Longburton, I targeted links that were:

• links to non-existent destinations
• duplicate links
• links that seem least likely to be selected by the reader

If you think I overdid it, just put some of them back. I won't mind. Be bold with your edits - I try to be! Thanks for discussing it with me, I learn from such feedback. Bobblewik  (talk) 12:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Multiple links

You're quite right about the text of an article - multiple links are unnecessary. But in things like the info boxes and engine lists, I feel that they are called-for. For example, a reader might just scan the text and jump to the info box to see which engines were used in a third-generation Honda Civic. They would want to click directly on the engine link, not scan up to see where it was linked. Please don't get me wrong on my reverts of this and the horsepower stuff - I greatly respect what you're doing! --SFoskett 15:44, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I was aware that infobox and body text are considered separate by many. But I had forgotten it. Thanks for reminding me. I don't recall repeat links in lists being mentioned before and it was certainly not something that I thought of. That is useful to know. I had the crude approach of deleting all repeat links while in edit mode. Clearly I will have to be more careful.

I have not been offended by your reverts of my edits of links and horsepower. They have not appeared to me to be hostile. I am hoping that a great benefit across Wikipedia will emerge from the horsepower debate. I take your opinion seriously and note what you have to say. It is nice of you to mention your respect, it is mutual. Thanks. Bobblewik  (talk) 16:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excessive linking

I've noticed you've been recently removing links from Allies of World War II article. I'm curious, is there any rational reason behind removing links ? I bet there is, as otherwise you wouldn't bother to do it. But why are the links harmful ? It's only text, after all. Thanks in advance for explaining this. --Lysy ^(talk) 15:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• I removed links in section headings and year only articles. This is in accordance with the manual of style.
• There were 7 links to 'United Kingdom'. I reduced that to 3.
• There were 4 links to 'United Kingdom'. I reduced that to 1.

I think excessive linking makes Wikipedia look silly but it is not a big deal for me. If you disagree with what I did, feel free to put the links back. Thanks for raising this so politely. Bobblewik 16:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, I was just curious whether this is just a matter of style/personal preferences, or is there any deeper reason behind. While I personally tend to prefer more and more links, this will not prompt me to revert the edits. Thanks for responding. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Note on Allies of WWII: The regime titles of all signatories have gone through an extensive period of research, and the discussion is available at Talk:Allies#Proposal. The names that appear in the article are all properly researched and the official title or regime name that appears on all signatory documents (for example United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland is the correct name in several instances). This process was the cooperative effort of several editors before the Allies article was split into Allies of World War I and Allies of World War II. It is only the textural material now that is being debated, now that all proper entity names have moreless been identified and agreed upon. Thank you. nobs 17:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Redirects

I've for long been pretty suspicious against the habit of some wikipedians to change references in order to avoid re-directs.

My impression is that a few disadvantages arise from this habit:

1. There is no information on the referred page on the connection between the initial referred term and the article one has arrived at.
2. When (if) a redirect is made into an article (like Estonians that for long was nothing but a redirect to Estonia), the original references (intended to be to Estonians) will continue to point to the broader term (i.e. at Estonia) if someone has circumvented the redirect with a pipe, which will be hard to find except with the help of a script that checks all pages referring to the broader term.
3. If the reason for the redirect is an alternative spelling, the result too often will be that the article is changed only at the reference and not systematically, which lead to strange effects and suffering uniformity with regard to capitalization and/or language variety.

I'm sure there are advantages too — technical, I guess. But I would urge you to consider these aspects when you insert Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages additions.

regards! /Tuomas 13:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about using the template. I just came across it and tried it out. Feel free to revert what I did. In response to your feedback, I will be much less inclined to use it in future. Thanks for your feedback. Bobblewik  (talk) 22:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

order of magnitude

Why did you take out the link to the order of magnitude page when you added metric measurements to Indiana Dune National Lakeshore. I restored it. Rmhermen 00:32, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

It was not a deliberate removal. Sorry. Now that you mention it, it seems to me that order of magnitude should be on a principle size reference (in this case, acres) rather than a supplementary size reference (in this case, km²). What do you think? Bobblewik  (talk) 11:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know all the orders of magnitude pages are purely in metric so it would seem odd for a link to jump from a Imperial measure, acres, to a page entirely in square meters. Rmhermen 18:33, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thanks. Bobblewik  (talk) 18:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the weight issue on Ronny Rosenthal page - I missed the dot location while typing the whole article. You should have assumed that it's a matter of dot-location, but thanks anyway! User:VICTOR 14:51 19-Nov-2004 UTC.

You are welcome. It did occur to me that it was merely a decimal point error. However, I think 60 kg is very light for a 1.80 m sportsman and so I was not sure. Bobblewik  (talk) 19:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rounding and links to orders of magnitude

Please leave the link to the order of magnitude in areas and preferably avoid rounding (e.g. Wildhaus, Habsburg). -- User:Docu

Hello,
Thanks for your feedback. It took me a while to find your page from just your name. If you sign your comments with 4 tildes (~), then Wikipedia puts a link that I can use directly.

At your request, in the Swiss references to area, I am now leaving the orders of magnitude untouched. You may have already noticed this.

As far as rounding is concerned:
I round to the nearest km² partly because I think it is usually enough for the reader but also for the appeal of integer values. I get the impression that you think more precision is appropriate. I can understand that, particularly where the area is small. In another application, I used a default precision of 1 km² but increased precision to 0.1 km² for all values less than 5 km². My main concern is that area is described in m² or km² rather than hectares. The precision is of secondary importance to me.

So if you are happy with area being described in m² or km², then I will be happy to take your guidance on precision (e.g. including leaving precision at 0.01 km²). Leave a reply on my talk page.
Bobblewik 19:48, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

tags

I am curious. I just noticed you put a clean up tag on wheat. Now, this tag is very ugly and it spoils the article. I do not understand why it should be damaged this way, and with no explanation offered. If you think it is not good, why dont you just edit it for it to look better instead of adding ugly tags ? How long will that tag stay here ? Who will remove it ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 13:47, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The text contains the unit 'acre' and I wanted to add metric values. Unfortunately I could not understand the meaning of:

• In 1799, thin-chaffed wheats were seriously injured; and instances were not wanting to show, that an acre of them, with respect to value, exceeded an acre of thick-chaffed wheat, quantity and quality considered, not less than fifty per cent.

It was not just that one sentence, the article contains quite a bit of text like that. As is so often the case, the fault lies with text taken from Household Cyclopedia of 1881. Perhaps I should have mentioned that. I will add a comment to state my reason. If you can understand what that text means, feel free to revise it into plain english. I could not understand it at all.

Feel free to remove the tag. I won't object. I actually agree with you that there are too many articles with tags. Thanks for your feedback. Bobblewik  (talk) 13:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I could not put it in good english. but I think that in 1799, thin-chaffed wheat were damaged to such a point their yield and quality was about 50% only of thick-chaffed wheat. 50% of yield is easy enough to measure. Quality is less easily measurable though in terms of percentage. I think this is just a ponctual event, and has no interest whatsoever in the long term. So, should be discarded.

What is bugging me is not so much the amount of articles with tags, that the fact it is so proeminently adverstised to the reader. Our kitchen and our administration should not interfere with our final product. Ie, such tags should not deface articles people are reading and using. SweetLittleFluffyThing

I removed the tag. I also removed the text about 1799. You state it very well that 'kitchen and administration' should be less visible. I regard 'links to articles that don't exist' as a similar irritation. Following your valid comments, I will be much less likely to use tags. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Bobblewik  (talk) 14:15, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nod. But I wonder if a solution might not to improve the current text displayed on the page. Perhaps by having it shorter, smaller and at least at the end of article ? Perhaps the best is only to add the category "clean up" and nothing else ? (so a list of articles to improve is still visible  ?) Or perhaps we do need a more advanced system to validate articles ?

Since you are involved in article improvement, what is your opinion on this ?

SweetLittleFluffyThing

I agree that text of each tag should not be prominent. That means short, small, and without loud colour. If you make a proposal to that effect, I will support you. Bobblewik  (talk)

Hi :-)

[3]. SweetLittleFluffyThing

The edit summary

Misleading edit summaries

Your recent edit to the article History of the tank, with the summary "units", actually consisted mostly of cleaning up the spelling and grammar of User:Muchenhaeser. He's a knowlegable contributor, but his grasp of basic English is a little weak, so I've been following his edits and cleaning up. It would be nice if your edit summary had hinted that you'd done more than just unit conversions. Thanks, Carnildo 21:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. My focus is almost always on units and I sometimes do spelling while I am at it. You are correct that spelling predominated in that case. I frequently mention spelling in the summary but in this case I did not. I should have mentioned it. Mea culpa. Bobblewik  (talk) 21:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Leave details of ALL that you did in comments

You so often just go in and add metric versions and tidy up measurements that I've mostly stopped actually checking the changes ... but in Hemi you removed the capitalisation from the word Hemi in all places, which you didn't say you did in the comment. Hemi is capitalised in common usage when it refers to the Chrysler engines; it's a proper noun. I'm going to change them back (but not the measurements changes). —Morven 00:32, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

I apologise for sounding a bit over-emphatic about this. Still, being as descriptive as possible helps eliminate a factor of surprise. Any change can be reverted, however, so nothing is too serious. I just easily get into a state of taking things too seriously, I think. Please don't take that as being a major telling-off when it really should have been just a small hint for better co-existence. —Morven 17:42, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)