One thing is "kW" for horsepower, another is "km/h" for knots. This is an article about a person that lived and died a hundred years ago, and the measures you use were not used at that time. When it comes to "km/h" at sea, its still not used. Ulflarsen 23:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC) :Thanks for your feedback. The question of metric units in ship articles is quite a big one. I have taken the liberty of raising the issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Are_metric_measures_not_permitted.3F. Bobblewik (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC) ==units of time== ===Multiple units of time=== I have taken the liberty of changing "m" to "min" in Eben_Moglen. I have also switched whitespacing to "12 h 34 min" (from "12h 34min") in some cases. It looks a bit odd to me, but at least it's consistent. Rl 11:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC) :Very good. As you probably know, there should be a space before unit symbols. I think this comes from ISO 31 and is mentioned in the Manual of Style. The abbreviations 'h' and 'min' are shown in Wikipedia and on the SI website: http://www.bipm.fr/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table6.html :I think time durations often look odd because more than one unit is quoted (part hours and part minutes). This is not how we normally like metric units. Thus '1 h 25 min' looks like '1 kg 24 g'. If time durations used single units like '85 min' they would be less odd and look more like '1024 g'. Although it is common for non-metric units e.g. '1 pt 3 oz'. It is the same issue when people quote '1 m 65 cm' (two units, as some people use) instead of '1.65 m' (single unit, my preference). I tolerate the written form being different to the spoken form. After all, abbreviations do precisely that anyway. As you say, what you did increased consistency and that is a good thing. :Thanks for your edits and your feedback. Bobblewik (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC) === units of inverse time === Regarding your edit to Final_Fantasy:_The_Spirits_Within, 'fps' is the accepted abbreviation for 'frames per second' (particularly in CG), not 'frames/s'. (If you really wanted to go SI, Hz would have been right — and it's the norm when referring to television). A quick scan of your contribs list doesn't turn up anything else where you might have changed this... but that's a mightily impressive list you've got. Keep up the good work! -- Perey 19:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I have done some previous changes from fps to frame/s, but not recently. Only a few anyway. If you want to track them down, search for 'frame/s'. The SI form Hz would certainly work for me, but I was being conservative with my change. I know that 'fps' is accepted by some, but I do not regard that as reason to believe that 'frame/s' is unacceptable. I tried to do a web search to see if the term 'frame/s' is in use, but I failed. I won't promise to close my options but, in consideration of your response, I will certainly be less inclined to modify 'fps' to 'frame/s'. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik (talk) 20:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==units involving light== === lumens === Could you eyeball Lux and Talk:Lux? An anon has edited Lux, changing phrases like "1000 lumens" to "1000 lumen" on the grounds that "Symbols are written in singular, e.g. 25 kg (not "25 kgs"). Similarly it is lumen not lumens." I'm pretty sure he's wrong about that—that is, it applies tot he symbols, but not to the fully-spelled-out unit names—and have cited an NIST style guide on the talk page. What I'm much less certain of is his use of "klx," "μlx", &c.; These are presumably valid combinations of an SI prefix and symbol. What bothers me is that I've never, never, '''never''' seen them in use. I've always just seen the base unit, with the value in scientific notation. E.g. instead of saying "direct sunlight is about 100,000 lux," in a scientific or technical context you'd see "direct sunlight is about 105 lux," but '''never''' "direct sunlight is 100 klx." But I'm no SI guru. What if anything can be said about the use of such constructions? User:Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Thanks for the pointer. I have responded on Talk:Lux. Bobblewik (talk) 15:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Units of force== ===BQM-74=== Hi again Bobblewik. Two comments on your last edit to this article: 1. Expressing thrust in lb rather than lbf is a very widely used convention in aerospace circles and publications. Since the vast majority of our articles here use lb, it probably makes more sense to follow this convention ourselves. 2. I'm not sure why you changed the metric conversion for 40,000 ft. 40,000 ft is 12,195 m - I could understand rounding to 12,200 m but to 12,000? Cheers --Rlandmann 23:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) :1. I am sure that lots of people would have an opinion on this. Could we discuss the issue in a generic talk page? :2. I am never very comfortable with conversions of altitude. In this case, the article mentioned a range expressed by the manufacturers. This depends on when the rocket motor runs out of fuel. It also depends on the number and extent of direction changes during the flight to follow an uncooperative target. Just like a service ceiling, the boundary from fully functioning to non-functioning is not sharply defined. It is a manufacturer nominal specification which is variable in operation. :I did first round it to 12,200 m because this is usually the precision I use for aircraft. But then I changed my mind because it seemed excessive precision given the very wide operating range to almost ground level. But it was a somewhat arbitrary decision. Feel free to put the value you think is best. Thanks for the questions. Bobblewik (talk) 08:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::1. I've asked for comments on the WikiProject Aircraft talk page. ::2. I hear your misgivings and agree with them. Indeed, ''all'' our performance specifications are subject to the same kinds of qualification - speed, range, climb are all highly variable. We simply have to accept published figures at their face value; indeed, since the figures provided by manufacturers/users of these vehicles are already "somewhat arbitrary", I feel that converting them is really more like a "translation" than anything else. If we were following rules about significant figures, then 40,000 ft would simply be 10,000 m, even further away! --Rlandmann 05:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Units of pressure== === mb/mbar === I noticed the edit war that you are in on the 2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season page regarding the symbol for millibar. Actually both are acceptble symbols (the Millibar page itself doesn't even say one is prefered over the other) and mb is much more common in U.S. meteorology, that being the reason that the page uses mb. --Holderca1 11:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC) :Get the NWS to go SI and use Kilopascals (kPa) like Environment_Canada does, and you won't have anything to argue about. Gene Nygaard 12:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC) ::It does not seem like an edit war to me. As far as I could see, there was only one edit specifically changing 'mbar' to 'mb' but I did not examine all edits. The symbols for units are defined at: ::* http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html (US NIST) ::* http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table8.html (SI authority)) ::I have no objection to this being discussed somewhere. Bobblewik 20:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC) == google units == what is this "units possibly using google converter" i keep seeing? you should make the edit summary a link to a short description. keep in mind that google converter is wrong sometimes, notably with calculations involving Kbps. convert with care. - Omegatron 13:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) :As you can see, I do a *lot* of conversions rapidly. I do try to take account of the many constraints that people request but it is impossible to comply with all of them. In general, think that I do convert with care. However, there is always room for improvement so I am keen to here more. I don't understand what you mean by a 'link'. Are you suggesting that I put a web page in there? ::No, I mean write up a little thing on your user page and then enter your edit summary as
Good point. Inclusiveness is part of my motivation. Changing a single non-international format to a single international format increases inclusiveness. A change in the other direction decreases it. Additional supplementary formats optimised for particular languages and regions seem unnecessary if the international version is comprehensible. But I have objection in principle to supplementing an international format with a variety of additional non-international formats. *''your philosophy of units. If I'm not mistaken, it is to prefer SI units rather than other metric units''
That is a fair summary, although not as I would put it. My primary preference is for SI instead of non-SI. People seem to agree about the definition of SI but not about the definition of 'metric'. For example, since 1968, the SI authority has said that SI is the 'modern form of the metric system'. It may no longer be 'modern' and you could interpret their statement as meaning 'SI' and 'metric system' are synonyms. Other than the SI authority, there is no metric system authority. But that may be an esoteric point. Your summary should predict my edits. If somebody writes 2.2 quintals claiming the 100 kg version of quintal is 'metric', I would change it to 220 kg. *''SI units rather than other metric units, e.g. 1.20m rather than 120cm or 1200mm''.
Not quite. All three (1.2 m, 120 cm, 1200 mm) are correct SI and are consistent with my primary preference for SI. I have a secondary preference for powers of 1000 in unit formats. I think it can be traced to an ISO standard. The newer SI prefixes are consistent with that but not the older ones. As you might expect, I care more about my primary preference than my secondary preferences. *''Different fields have different practices in their use of units in metric countries.''
Indeed. I am glad you mention that. It is a popular misconception that the USA is 100% wrong and 'metric countries' are 100% right. Even 'metric countries' differ. Many have widespread non-compliances that would be criticised if it were America e.g. use of 'dunams' and 'quintals'. *As far as hectares are concerned, this has been discussed at length and I don't think there is much new to say. Hectares are widespread when addressing certain audiences. In some cases either unit is used for the same area, sometimes a piece of text will include both. But they are not as comprehensible to the general public as SI units. If I understand Gene correctly, he will tolerate hectares for areas less than 10 km². *''For example, furniture designers in Europe use mm, whereas architects use cm...Beverages are usually measured in cl, not ml or l,''
Hmm. It is not true to say that 'European architects use cm' and drinks are in cl not ml. The European architects that I have encountered use mm and not cm. I expect for the same reason that I do. The suggestion that drinks throughout Europe are always in cl not ml is also unsupportable. I do notice that countries differ in this respect. Some countries use 'dl' and in others it would be regarded as incomprehensible. Perhaps you could name the European country you are thinking of. *''Gasoline mileage of automobiles is expressed in liters/100 km, not in km/liter.''
I know. This does not fit with the idea that multipliers should be on the numerator. SI expresses volume in cubic metres and length in metres and we could reduce it to units of area. Then we might suggest that fuel should really be in units of energy just like it is when you recharge an electric vehicle or fuel your home. I 'touch' a lot of articles at a fairly high rate. So it is inevitable that lots of people see my edits. There are a lot of weird and wonderful formats used but there are a few people that try to raise the quality of unit formats throughout Wikipedia. I hope that number of people is increasing. Hopefully, responses such as 'hmm that edit seems odd to me' or 'that edit is wrong' are less common than satisfactory acceptance. Bobblewik 14:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC) == What is the issue with the NYC subway cars? == I noticed your RfC and went to take a look, and it seemed like a big mess. Have you tried to communicate with the anon contributor? What's been the result, if any? —Morven 04:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC) :I have not tried to communicate. I guess that as a matter of etiquette, I should have done that before mentioning it. Mea culpa. It was just one of those experiences that makes me sigh. My main priority, as I am sure you know is correct use of units. The has been no real opposition to correct use of units. So I am reluctant to enter into a debate with a user about issues that do not rank first on my priority list. I should let it go, as I did the first time I was reverted. :I suspect that the contributor is an enthusiast. The content is apparently valid but the format is bizarre and there is resistance to change if done by other editors. I remember a similar experience with Ford_GT90. It is no big deal but I thought that the best way of addressing it would be to allow others to see what is going on. Bobblewik 11:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC) ::See Talk:R142A_(New_York_City_Subway_car). Should it be moved to Category talk page? Gene Nygaard 17:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC) :::I did notice that you had written that. Thanks for joining/launching in the debate. Incidentally, you have a stray ''inches'' in the table rather than ''in''. :::As you suggest, it does not really belong at the individual car page. Perhaps the category page or maybe better at the talk page of a parent article such as New_York_City_Subway. Bobblewik 17:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC) ==You da man!== Just had to say that! Scott 02:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC) :Say it as often as you like. I will not tire of hearing it. Thanks. Bobblewik 02:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC) Only twice..."You are da man!, LOL" Regards Scott 02:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC) == an old edit to Holungen introduced an unknown Unicode character == Hello, In this edit to Holungen, you introduced the Unicode character  which is an undefined "private use area" character. I have now edited it out, but I am curious what text processing program you used to produce such a character. -- Curps 10:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC) :Aha. I think this is what I did: :* copied the text into Microsoft Word. :* Add a comment ending with the characters '-->' :* For its own reasons, Microsoft word automatically changed those characters into something else. :* I copied the text back into the article :* I then noticed that the characters '-->' are not there so I added them. :This automatic change by Microsoft Word is an irritation because it happens frequently. I have not done anything about it. I suppose I can look it up in the autoreplace settings. Bobblewik 10:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC) ==Date Links== Thanks for your note on date links. Everyone seems to have different ideas about it. I'm forever getting people adding date links into my articles. Chevin 18:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC) == Aircraft specs policy == Several weeks ago, you voted in the WikiProject Aircraft Specifications Survey. One of the results of the survey was that the specifications for the various aircraft articles will now be displayed using a template. Ericg and I have just finished developing that template; a lengthier bulletin can be found on the WT:Air talkpage. Naturally, we will need to begin a drive to update the aircraft articles. However, several topics in the survey did reach establish consensus, and they need to be resolved before we implement the template. It is crticial that we make some conclusion, so that updating of the specs can resume as soon as possible. You can take part in the discussions here. Thanks, Ingoolemo talk 05:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC) == The Library, Trinity College == Hi, I've reverted the lowercase in ''Library'' as it plays a specific and histotical role in the College (and indeed, country). Dlyons493 Talk 20:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC) :If you are suggesting that it is a proper noun rather than a common noun, that is fine. Thanks for your feedback. I see that common nouns in other section headings are capitalised. Did you recapitalise those too for some reason? Bobblewik 23:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC) == A query from a curious cat == I saw your dewikifying edits of years in Farkhor_Air_Base. Is there any aesthetic reason or any other reason behind such reduction in overlinking? Just curious, since I just pounce of unwikified years wherever I see it and wikify it. :) Idleguy 13:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC) :A good question. The explanation might be easier when we consider the question ''Why link dates?''. :The reason for the existence of date 'links' is because of 'date preferences'. For example, Americans like to see April 12, 1981 and Brits like to see 12 April 1981. If square brackets are added, the Wikipedia software amends the format so that the sequence matches that chosen by the reader in the preference settings. It should not really be called a 'link' at all, the actual 'link' to the article is merely a secondary effect.
Date elements that are unambiguous across cultures (such as a year on its own: 1981) do not involve date preferences and so do not need the square brackets for reformatting. It is explained (not very well) at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Date_formatting and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28links%29#Internal_links
This issue is widely misunderstood. Lots of dates get linked on Wikipedia and some people think that means *all* must be linked. However, this is not supported in any Wikipedia guidance. There is no assertion that reader access to date articles is insufficiently satisfied.
I think linking of solitary-years and solitary-months is overlinking. However if that is what people want, it is fine by me but I think it has just become one of the things that editors do without thinking too much.
The issue is discussed from time to time. For example at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous.
:Thanks for asking here. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 15:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::It's also not true that none of the years standing alone should be linked. I have pointed out that dates are overlinked; I do not, however, agree that they should never be linked if it has nothing to do with preferences.
::In your overzealous "reducing overlinking" you have now gone so far as to remove a link that was the only year mentioned in a whole article, and one that could legitimately be linked for purposes other than preferences, and were reverted on it by someone other than me. Gene Nygaard 02:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
== Sinclair article ==
Thanks for your helpful edits on the Sinclair_Research_Ltd article which I have worked '''really hard''' on. I am still determined to get this to FA status, despite it being rejected once so far as a FA candidate. Thanks again! — Wackymacs 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:You are very welcome. The topic is noteworthy and you are doing a good job. I learned some things from reading it. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 20:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
== ndash vs 'to' ==
In the Miles_Davis article, why convert "(date) – (date)" to "(date) to (date)"? As I understand, ndash is the appropriate typographical mark to indicate a range of something. But "to" is more readable. - Shadowhillway 15:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:I prefer to avoid associating digits with anything that looks like a ''minus'' symbol. See:
:*Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29/archive26#Use_of_hyphens_and_dashes_in_number_ranges. A discussion.
:* Manual of style says it is ''often preferable to write this out (for example, "4 to 7" or "four through seven") to avoid confusion with "four minus seven".''
:*US NIST guide ''to avoid possible confusion, this Guide strongly recommends that the word "to" be used to indicate a range of values for a quantity instead of a range dash (that is, a long hyphen) because the dash could be misinterpreted as a minus sign.''
:The reader should know that a date cannot be negative, but my style is to avoid dashes with any numbers. It is not a big deal. If you prefer another style, go ahead and use it. I won't mind. Thanks for mentioning it here. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 15:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks for those links. I hadn't even thought about consulting the MoS. In my editing so far I've just been using common sense and a general feeling for what WP should be from reading articles. - Shadowhillway 15:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:::You are welcome. Best wishes. Bobblewik 15:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
::My two cents. In the case of dates of lifespan (or some other things such as regnal dates) immediately following a person's name, that is one situation in which replacing an en dash with the word "to" is really stupid and should not be done. I agree with the replacement in the case of many measurements, but this particular usage is well established, conventional, and nearly impossible to confuse with a minus sign. I will revert such changes whenever I run across them. Gene Nygaard 15:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:::This makes a whole lot of sense. Thanks for the tip. - Shadowhillway 22:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
== Columbine_High_School_massacre ==
Thank you for uniforming the units and links on this article, but I've restored the tables you changed. Basically, when u turned the tables into lists, it ended up distorting the continuation of the article. The tables were placed there as a sidenote to the reader since several people complained of not being able to keep the victims straight as they read, they're not ment to be lists with their own section, but sidenotes; the list of victims has its own article. Also, the location of pictures has caused a distortion in which half the list was off center than the rest. Most of all... it just made the article look ugly (no offense). Your other edits are still there, since I thought they were great and I appreciate them, but just wanted to let you know about the lists/tables. Thanks! PRueda29 18:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:The table edits were the lowest priority of my edits. In fact, I started editing the table partly to because I thought it would be better to replace the top style section with class="wikitable". I also thought the text was a bit small to read. Then I considered that mandating left-align is redundant because that is the default.
:After various changes I just thought that a single column is hardly a table, it is a list. I then noticed that the layout was messed up and I did not want to get further involved. Sorry about that. I don't mind at all that you reverted it. The other edits were less dramatic, but actually I think they added more value. Thanks for the feedback. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 19:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
== Duplicate pages ==
We already have pages on Resistor and Capacitor. I suggest you merge this page into those. Also I think circuit design is too general a title for asingle article.--Light current 01:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:When you say "''... this page ...''", what page do you mean? Bobblewik 01:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
::Circuit design--Light current 01:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Oh I see. Well, I did not create the article title or the content. I merely did a few changes to format such as changing the title from ''word case'' ('''Circuit Design''') to ''sentence case'' ('''Circuit design'''). These format changes could apply to any article and do not require knowledge of the subject matter.
:::I would prefer not to get involved further. Your suggestions seem reasonable to me. Feel free to do whatever you think is best. I appreciate you bringing these issues to my attention. Bobblewik 01:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
== U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program ==
Hi — thanks for contributing to U.S._Navy_Marine_Mammal_Program during its recent peer review (you fixed the units!). Just thought I'd let you know that I've nominated the article for FA status. — Johantheghost 16:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for the note. I have just taken another look and done another unit fix i.e. added a space between a numeric value and the unit symbol (250kg -> 250 kg). I have also eliminated links to solitary years. If you look elsewhere on my talk page, you will see why but if you are unhappy about that, feel free to revert it. Units are my big thing, overlinking of solitary years is just an irritation that I try to resolve. Good luck with the article, it is very interesting and worthy of FA status. Bobblewik 17:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks for contributing again. On the years thing, I get your point about preferences etc. However, I (as a newbie here) had thought that one point of linking years is so eg. if I say "back in the 1960's, such and such..." people can click for context. Also, if I say "the marine mammal prog was established in 1960", then there's the potential to auto-generate a timeline showing everything that happened in 1960. In that case, of course, you would only want to Wikify important dates. Anyhow, I think it's fine as it is. BTW, if you think it's FA-ready, the vote is on... :-)
::And thanks for carrying the torch of units consistency — that kind of thing is essential for a professional-looking reference. — Johantheghost 21:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
==Please don't create double redirects==
They don't work. A redirect that points to another redirect will only take you as far as the second redir, not to the article. There are several reasons for this, one is to prevent loops, another is for performance, another is just to encourage tidiness. Anyway, that's the way the software works, and I don't think there's any proposal to change it.
Three redirects already pointed to watt electrical, and were broken by your making it into a redirect, affecting a long list of articles that linked to them. So before making an existing page into a redirect, please check for redirects that already point to it, and change them to point to the new target. You don't need to change the articles, just the existing redirects. Then no links will be broken. I've fixed these ones. TIA. Andrewa 06:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
:I know that double redirects should be fixed. For some reason I did not fix them in that case. Mea culpa. Sorry. Thanks for fixing them.
:Incidentally, there a big cleanup and reorganisation of units of measurement articles. This is being discussed at Talk:Units_of_measurement. The changes to Watt subarticles is part of that. SI unit (candela, watt, farad, seconds etc) articles explain their own multiples (microwatt, milliwatt, kilowatt, gigawatt etc). However, Megawatt is unique amonst Category:Units of power in having its own article. I tried to create a redirect but was reverted. If you have an opinion on the cleanup/reorganisation or just on Megawatt, I would be happy if you would share it in Talk:Units_of_measurement.
:Thanks again for fixing my oversight. Regards Bobblewik 11:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
::Sorry if I was terse above! Lots of issues here. The discussion on redirects seems to now be at Talk:Units_of_measurement/Format_of_articles_about_units, so I've joined in there. Andrewa 14:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
== Pune ==
{| align=center style="width: 100%; border: #bbbbff solid 1px; background-color: #eeeeff;"
|-
|
Image:WikiThanks.png
Thank you for your contribution at Pune.
Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
'''Feel free to send me e-mail'''.
|}
== Date links ==
It's my usual practice to wikify solitary years and months; that is the reason why I "reverted" your edit in the Erich_Vermehren article. Be it as it may I also added a link to Isa_Vermehren because I intend to create an article on her in the near future. It turns out that she has as interesting a life as her brother :). RashBold 17:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:The reason for the existence of date 'links' is because of 'date preferences'. For example, Americans like to see April 12, 1981 and Brits like to see 12 April 1981. If square brackets are added, the Wikipedia software amends the format so that the sequence matches that chosen by the reader in the preference settings. It should not really be called a 'link' at all, the actual 'link' to the article is merely a secondary effect.
Date elements that are unambiguous across cultures (such as a year on its own: 1981) do not involve date preferences and so do not need the square brackets for reformatting. It is explained (not very well) at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Date_formatting and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28links%29#Internal_links
This issue is widely misunderstood. Lots of dates get linked on Wikipedia and some people think that means *all* must be linked. However, this is not supported in any Wikipedia guidance. There is no assertion that reader access to date articles is insufficiently satisfied.
I think linking of solitary-years and solitary-months is overlinking. However if that is what people want, it is fine by me but I think it has just become one of the things that editors do without thinking too much.
The issue is discussed from time to time. For example at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous. :Anyway it is not a big deal. :I think Erich_Vermehren is a very interesting article. I am glad it exists because I learned something. Thanks for what you have done. Regards Bobblewik 15:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC) == West Coast Range == Brakects at date. Good point made. I cant even remember putting them in! Thanks for your note on this! vcxlor 13:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC) :You are welcome. You didn't add the links, other users did. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 15:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC) == Naseeruddin_Shah == Hi, on the above article, u removed the links for distinct years with the edit summary, ''Reduce overlinking: dates need linking for preferences to work but solitary years and solitary months do not have preferences so don't need linking.'' However the links are not for the proper working of preferences alone; for example, a solitary year when clicked would lead me to the page of that year which mentions the most important happenings in that year. This gives the reader the choice to understand the temporal context under which those happenings occurred. regards, --Gurubrahma 16:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC) :Indeed, the user has that choice. But I don't think that Wikipedia readers are unsatisfied in that urge. Nor do I think links to years are provided for that reason. They almost certainly exist because of a misunderstanding of date preferences. For example, Americans like to see April 12, 1981 and Brits like to see 12 April 1981. If square brackets are added, the Wikipedia software amends the format so that the sequence matches that chosen by the reader in the preference settings. It should not really be called a 'link' at all, the actual 'link' to the article is merely a secondary effect.
Date elements that are unambiguous across cultures (such as a year on its own: 1981) do not involve date preferences and so do not need the square brackets for reformatting. It is explained (not very well) at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Date_formatting and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28links%29#Internal_links
This issue is widely misunderstood. Lots of dates get linked on Wikipedia and some people think that means *all* must be linked. However, this is not supported in any Wikipedia guidance. There is no assertion that reader access to date articles is insufficiently satisfied.
I think linking of solitary-years and solitary-months is overlinking. If that is what people want, it is fine by me but I think it has just become one of the things that editors do without thinking too much.
The issue is discussed from time to time. For example at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous.
Anyway, if you want the links to solitary years in the article, feel free to put them back. Although you might wish to consider whether an article needs more than one link to the same article. Thanks for bringing this here. Bobblewik 16:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
==Good start...==
... on link-reduction with Sandy_Koufax. I gave it a whack last spring but "link-creep" set back in. It is still way overlinked. Sfahey 02:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks. Overlinking of dates is one of the most common silly things on Wikipedia. Hopefully, more editors will start to realise that. The real solution is to find a better method of handling date formats. There is a proposal to handle this but it needs to go on bugzilla. If you can help put it there, I would be grateful. See: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#More_about_overlinking_of_dates. Bobblewik 12:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
==Redirects to Orders_of_magnitude_(area)? ==
Where was this discussed? Why did you redirect all pages? -- User:Docu
:See: Talk:Units_of_measurement/Format_of_articles_about_units. Search for '17:42, 11 September 2005'. Bobblewik 13:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
::The discussion there seems a bit vague to me. Not even sure if it's about the order of magnitude pages. For previous discussion, you may want to look at Talk:Orders_of_magnitude. -- User:Docu
:::If you want to raise the matter again, feel free. Simply reverting what I do feels like a slap in the face. Bobblewik 13:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
::::Please excuse if you felt so, but I did request your comment on the matter, besides, redirecting and removing the pages built by others may seem the same to them. -- User:Docu
:::::I will survive. I will join you in open discussion if you want the people that spoke about it last time to clarify their statements. Bobblewik 13:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
(back to margin)Yes, Bobblewik needs to be aware that there is little clear consensus for anything in those discussions—and a certain wait-and-see attitude among those willing to consider the changes. There is ongoing discussion, with many areas not really agreed upon. You, Docu, should jump in with whatevery you have to say about it. It is an ongoing process; as various attempts at reorganization are attempted, there are often new little problems which crop up. Eventually it will probably sort itself all out.
Sometimes we need to push the envelope in order to get something accomplished. But when you know :that you are soing so, some reverts should be expected and taken in stride. Gene Nygaard 14:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
== units ==
Hi Bobblewik, I reverted your last edit to Cucurbituril let me explain why: the references itself makes use of angstroms and I want Wiki to be able to to help readers to understand that article when they access it. Now you have the scientific article mentioning angstroms but the Wiki page does not help the reader.
I also note that you remove Picometer links and replace them with meter links. I stongly oppose this: one of the nice things you van do with wiki is to see on the meter page what processes or objects are on the picometer level and what lets say on the micrometer level or kilometer level, with your actions you destroy this useful information.
(comment added: 15:02, 15 October 2005 V8rik)
:OK. Thanks for mentioning this here. Bobblewik 15:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
== Units in two chemistry articles ==
Hi. Is there a reason for using nanometers instead of angstrem in Molecule and Intercalation_(chemistry)? (which I noticed you changed) In the case of Molecule I guess it's quite arbitrary, but in the case of intercalation I think angstrems are more popular - people in molecular biology and chemistry are rather used to angstrems. All in all, I'm for changing everything to SI, although I don't see it as a big concern, so don't take this the wrong way :) Karol 17:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with you that usage is somewhat arbitrary and varies by domain. I think it varies by region too. SI terms are more than valid and commonplace in science, they are universally comprehensible to scientists and specifically encouraged by scientific publications. In any case, Wikipedia is not a specialist publication limited to biologists or chemists. It is a reference source specifically intended to cross many domains and regions. Thus the universally accessible term 'nanometre' is better than a term such as 'angstrom'. That is how I see it anyway. Bobblewik 13:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
::Hi Bobblewik. Reference texts very often limit themselves to listing the field-specific units alone, with many authors being very reluctant to the SI unit "globalization". A suggestion: whenever you include the SI unit, it'd be both useful and educational if you left the field-specific unit enclosed in a parentheses. Thanks and regards.--Unconcerned 19:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
== Delinking years ==
I agree that we don't need to link individual months in articles, but to go through and delink years is not a well spent effort, if you ask me. Being able to reference the year article from individual articles is an important source of historical context for events. It's nice to immediately see what else was happening in the year that penicillin was invented, or when the Corvette was redesigned, or when Pete Rose was first accused of betting on baseball. If a year is important enough to mention in an article, it's important enough to link it's first use in the article. Although I don't mind unlinking second and later mentions of a year, please don't unlink first mention of individual years in each article. Thanks. Unfocused 19:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:Hmm. This is what I said when the same topic was raised in relation to X_Window_System:
::
- P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
'''Feel free to send me e-mail'''.]]
==Aircraft Parking==
It was probably a mistake to pick that out. The standard airliner parking bay allows for a wingspan of 200' 6" as I understand it (the E350 is 200' 5" wingspan). It would fit in the general rule of "measurements for air, rail and sea transport". ''Rich Farmbrough'' 11:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh right, your change is good. ''Rich Farmbrough'' 11:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
:There is no ''general rule'' exempting air transport. Exemptions are specific. There are legal documents that include the requirement for aircraft altitude to be in feet. But no legal document (as far as I know) requires aircraft parking bays to be described in feet.
:In any case, such an exemption is unnecessary. The description of an aircraft parking bay in feet and inches is no more remarkable than the description of a bed in feet and inches without reference to metric units. Both are entirely legal. In fact, the article mentions this situation when it says:
''Thus, a fence panel sold as "6 foot by 6 foot" will continue to be legal after 2009 but a pole sold as "50 pence per linear foot" is illegal.''
It is odd to mention the legal status of something as specific as aircraft parking bays, when something as mundane as furniture has the same status.
::Yes I agree. And it's probably not the '''A'''350 anyway... However it's not merely a description, I believe it's governed by an international agreement, because of the required interoperability of aircraft and airports, imagine if the parking space was two inches too narrow... And the reason I put it in was that Airbus had (as I recollect) gone to within a very small distance (1 inch?) of the maximum size. But it probably would be better with a source, and in a different article.
:::Interesting. I really would like to see a source and the details of what exactly is mandated. Bobblewik 15:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
PS this page is in Category:Units of power.....
:Aha. Thanks for that. It is because a discussion elsewhere on the page happened to mention it and link to it. I have removed the link. Bobblewik 14:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
==Dates==
I unlink months in almost any circumstance. Years I leave at the moment - because I forsee the ability to display Jewish/Moslem years etc. I'd like to see an alternative wikifying for dates, e.g. << >>. (Automatic recognition is fraught with peril, and the grief I've had over it is huge, in fact it's one reason I don't welcome the orange "You have new messasages" rectangle like I used to.) A good markup interpreter would deal with some of the thinks like "2nd to 3rd June 1999". This would leave links for things like Valentines_Day. ''Rich Farmbrough'' 17:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
:Glad to read that you unlink months. I had not thought about non-Christian calendars. That is an interesting point. I also find the ''You have new messages'' rectangle too dominant. In fact, a lot of the editor-centric templates are too dominant in my opinion. We should be much more subtle and make a better experience for the core function of reading the articles.
:I am also not a big fan of automation as a solution to all problems. Some people suggest that articles could be converted into metric units automatically. Even more ambitious people suggest that user preferences could control the display of metric or non-metric units. I think the cure in that case is worse than the disease.
:Your suggestion of an alternative mark up for date preferences sounds good to me. I think it has even been mentioned before. Here is a link into the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#More_about_overlinking_of_dates. Please add a comment to it and I will join in. Regards Bobblewik 17:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
== Liquefied natural gas ==
Bobble, when you redid the Liquefied_natural_gas table you fliped the Exporters and Importers, making the big users the exporters and the small gas-rich countries the importers. Now why would a gas rich country like Qatar want to import natural gas? And Japan, which doesn't have any of its own, how can it be a large exporter? Be more careful please, and you'll get a cookie. WikiDon 03:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
:Oops. Mea culpa. Thanks to Sartorius for correcting that. And thanks to you for bringing it to my attention. I will indeed try to be more careful. Bobblewik 12:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
== Your Entry to Native Forest Restoration Trust ==
Good morning Bobblewik, I noticed your adjustment to the Native Forest Restoration Trust is incorrect in terms of size. My prior amendment from from figures were supplied on their offical websiteHttp://www.nznfrt.org.nz/ (aquired land-250 hectares per annum and 6000 hectares in protected forests). Therefore your figures have incorrectly downsized the true figures reversing the articles accuracy from the previous update(s). Do you wish to change the figures to acres? or update the figures to previous amendment to match the offical website figures in hectares? --Tom Webb 16:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
:Hi, I did not downsize the figures. 100 hectares is exactly the same area as 1 km². So 6000 hectares is exactly the same as 60 km² and 250 hectares is exactly the same as 2.5 km².
:So I am not sure what you mean. Bobblewik 16:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Sorry Booblewik, I miscalculated my figure by a factor of ten :( Please continue the good work. Are you a kiwi as well? --Tom Webb 03:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:::OK. No problems. I am not kiwi, I am British. Thanks. Bobblewik 11:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
== Superscripts in HTML ==
It's been interesting reading your talk page just now; I've learned a lot. I appreciate your dedication to consistency and reason.
I'm writing because of the changes you just made to Neman_River. You changed the superscripts from, for example, '''km²''' to '''km²'''. Of course I agree the latter looks and reads much better, but I understand the special character to be far less consistent across browsers and platforms than the HTML entity; are you sure it's as accessible? I hope you're right, and I hope you've considered this.
Also, I've done a bunch of work on the Infoboxes for rivers and protected areas, and I'd welcome any suggestions from you about how to better represent units in the instructions.
Thanks for your good work, —Papayoung ☯ 16:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
:I am not sure it is as accessible and that does worry me. Somebody that usually knows about these technical matters does it and I recently started copying them. As part of my consideration of this, I asked a question a couple of days ago at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Superscript_and_other_symbols. I would be happy if you could join in the discussion there.
:As far as the templates are concerned, I have made a comment there. I would also recommend sentence case for headings as per Manual of Style (Nearest City -> Nearest city). And thanks for the positive feedback, that makes me feel good about the effort I put in. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 11:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::Using unicode characters directly in the text is fine. See 1 and 2 and 3.
::I think we should have an option to view the edit window in either format (plain displayed unicode or HTML entities) on a per-page basis. I think I shall fill out a feature request... — Omegatron 19:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I don't understand all of the technical talk. I take it that a superscript like: km² is unicode. My main concern is accessibility. If the solution works for people using Lynx and JAWS, perhaps that is enough. Bobblewik 09:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
== MoS: Wikilinking Years ==
With regards to our recent edits to Grand_Valley_State_University: Sorry, I was not aware of this specification in the MoS. Thank you for pointing it out, and I'll try to look around first before my revert radar goes up. :) Euphoria 23:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:No problems. Thanks. Bobblewik 09:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
== reply ==
I would love to fix those errors, but it would probably find too many false positives, I'll keep an eye out for them though as there don't seem to be too man left now. thanks [23:06, 21 November 2005 Bluemoose]
:Thanks. Presumably anything between equal signs (==) can be regarded as a section heading. So I can't see how false positives would occur. Although I have no experience of bots. I appreciate you considering it anyway. Thanks. Bobblewik 09:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
== Mini Merger ==
It seems strange that you would tag the Mini article for merging and not comment on why you think it should be done. Also shouldn't the merge tag be added to both articles involved? Please comment on why you think this is an appropriate merge. Thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 21:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
== Britain ==
Why did you change the links from Great Britain to Britain on 19th_century? Please respond here. --Brunnock 23:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
:I believe that the Act_of_Union,_1800 means that ''Great Britain'' was not a good term for what was being described. Bobblewik 00:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
:: The Act of Union is about the United Kingdom. Why are you linking to an article about the history of the word "Britain"? --Brunnock 00:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
:::Indeed--you made a hash of :::theTreaty of Washington (1871) -- a treaty is negotiated between nations and not with a place. I've no problem with updating the link to United_Kingdom, but Britain is just wrong it that context. older≠wiser 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
::::Treaty_of_Washington_(1871) was inaccurate because it previously said ''Great Britain''. If you (older≠wiser) say that ''United Kingdom'' is better, that is fine by me. Feel free to change it.
:::::So you changed something that was wrong to something else that was even more wrong -- what's the point? If you're going to go to the bother of making such pedantic changes, at least make an effort to not make incorrect changes. older≠wiser 13:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
::::My use of the term ''Britain'' is informed by:
::::*Website of the ''British'' Prime Minister ''On this site the term 'Britain' is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.''
::::*The ''British'' Embassy ''the term “Britain” is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''
::::*Foreign and Commonwealth Office guide to the EU ''for simplicity, this booklet uses the term “Britain”. It should be taken to mean the United Kingdom (i.e. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland).''
::::*The Economist ''In most contexts favour simplicity over precision and use Britain rather than Great Britain or the United Kingdom, and America rather than the United States.''
::::* alt-usage-english ''Like the USA, the UK suffers from having no convenient adjective to describe the country or its people. The best thing that can be said for "British" is that it is not quite as misleading as "American", but it is nevertheless the established term for "relating to the UK"....So what about "Britain"? This is not a term with any legal meaning, but if you ask the English person in the street what country they live in surveys show that more will answer "Britain" than anything else. So it should probably be taken as a back-formation from "British", and therefore to mean "United Kingdom".''
::::*The ''British'' Consulate ''The term "Britain" is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.''
::::Perhaps this discussion should moved to Talk:United_Kingdom Bobblewik 12:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
::::: You should either edit the Britain article or you should stop linking to an article about the etymology of the word "Britain". --Brunnock 12:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::Hmm. So what is your suggestion for the link (genuine question)? Bobblewik 12:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::: Perhaps Britain? There are also situations where British_Empire is more correct. --Brunnock 13:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Good points. The article United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland seems to me to be a distraction. There is a lot of overlap with other articles and it could usefully be merged United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland. The various Wikipedia articles that are supposed to explain it are not easy to read. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik 14:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
===Proposed UK merger===
While I agree with your "leave for 7 days" theory for the majority of wikipedia articles, I believe SimonP was right when he said that it should not apply to high-volume articles such as United_Kingdom (the fourth most linked article on wikipedia]]. Looking at the history, you have reverted its deletion 3 or 4 times in the last day, and every time someone has again removed it. It is clear that your ideas are opposed and are extrememly unlikely to gain support - for the sake of everyone just back down and accept democracy. Cheers - Deano 20:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
:You've just done it again. You've got to stop doing this - you are ignoring the3-revert rule and just generally causing a nuisance. I ask you again, please stop. Deano 20:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
::Thank you for your comments here. A debate on early tag removal would have been welcome. Unfortunately, the first removal of the tag started 1.5 days from when it was added. I think 1.5 days is not a reasonable length of time. Removal by stealth and by making false statements like 'debate petered out' is wrong. Just because editors did not like ideas different to theirs does not mean that they should prevent other Wikipedia readers from engaging in it.
::I do not know why people are so upset about this issue, if they count 7 days from when the tag was put there, or 1 day from the last comment, it is not such a long time for them to wait.
::Thanks again for bringing it here. Bobblewik 20:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
:::I totally agree that removal by stealth and false statements are useless, but all said and done it has been around 5 days since you first introduced the tag, and on the basis of United_Kingdom being one of the highest-volume aricles on Wikipedia, I think it would be fair to say that an extremely significant number of people have seen it. Indeed, a significant number have commented on it. I do not condone anyone prematurely removing the tag without due debate, but I can also see that you are fighting a losing battle and there is little or no point delaying the inevitable. Deano 20:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your further response. I appreciate it. The debate on the talk page seemed reasonable. I was genuine in the debate and I believe others are too. So I was quite surprised to encounter hostility to the tag itself. I made an open comment about a 7 tag expiry period in the talk page but it was not challenged there. The fact that early aggression has continued for days till nearly the reasonable deadline does not make changing the deadline more palatable. I agree that I am fighting a losing battle. I am glad that you have said that you do not condone premature removal. It would be nice if you or anyone else made that point on the talk page. Bobblewik 21:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
==3RR==
You have easily breached the 3RR rule despite warnings to stop. You have now been proposed for a block for the multiple breach.'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''15px\(caint) 21:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
== vandalism ==
Hi, I just reverted some minor vandalism on your user page by User:129.55.200.20. Herostratus 18:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:Aha. I had not noticed that. Thank you very much. Bobblewik 19:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
== Units of area ==
I noticed you have changed some formats on areas in metric s shown here by this diff. Should I just cut and paste that uppercase "2" or am I doing something wrong. I respect your ability to explain my mistake as I know you have a lot of understanding of these measurement issues. Thanks.--MONGO 12:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
:Just cut and paste it. That is what I always do. I am sure there must be another way, but I don't know it.
:I like that format because it looks the same in edit mode but I was concerned about whether it was browser dependant. If you look at the section titled 'Superscripts in HTML' on this talk page, you will see that somebody with more technical knowledge has investigated it. If I understand it correctly, some people have suggested a bot to do the format conversions. Bobblewik 12:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
== A small request ==
Hi! When you're delinking years (a guideline I hadn't realized existed, incidentally; thanks for educating me ;-)), if it's not too much trouble, could you check that the second date in a pair remains shortened. In other words, 1508-16 should become 1508-16, not 1508-1516. —Kirill Lokshin 20:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
:I appreciate your thanks. Since the fuss about the millenium bug, I assumed that years should always be 4 digits. It is a good question of general interest so I have asked it at talk:Manual of style. We can see what people say. I don't mind either way and will go along with the consensus. Thanks for questioning it. Bobblewik 11:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
== ''Mea_culpa!'' ==
Greetings! Sorry about inadvertently deleting your comment. I do not know why the section I edited thereafter repeated like ''five'' times (perhaps because we were editing at the same time), but I apologise that my remedy was a disease unto you. :) Take care! E Pluribus Anthony 15:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
:No problems. I noticed the duplication and was about to do something about it myself. I know you are an experienced editor and I was convinced it was accidental. I appreciate you commenting on it. Thanks. Bobblewik 15:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
::Great! I'm not wholly without controversy, but who doesn't have skeletons in the closet? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 15:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
== Recent amendments to area measurments and date links ==
Hi.
I notice that you have recently edited several of my contributions with the comment:
:''Units. Reduce linking to solitary years and solitary months in accordance with Manual of Style.''
The actual changes seems to be changing an area in hectares to the equivalent in square kilometers, and delinking a year that is not previously linked in the article. I'm mystified as to why either of these improves the article, but as I'm in the process of writing more articles along the same lines, I thought I'd better ask you to explain. And could you give me a more specific reference to the bit of the MoS you are quoting. Thanks. -- Chris j wood 15:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
:Hi, thanks for bringing this here. The unit change is because it is easier for ordinary people to visualise areas in square kilometres than hectares. The guidelines for date links are at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Date_formatting. I think you are doing a good job with those articles. Thanks. Bobblewik 21:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)