Template talk:Convert/Archive January to October 2007

message: It's now at the Template:Convert/doc subpage.+mwtoews 01:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved conversion table 

message: Nice little template Drum.  A few changes I would make would be to have an option to abbreviated both units of measurement for use in tables and infoboxes (see: .30-06) and change some of the customary units' abbreviations to the traditional forms; eg mi²->sq mi.  —MJCdetroit 17:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Any way to make this subst'able? Using subst on  results in a massive amount of stuff. I'd use the template more, but I'm worried about server load etc. Is there a way to add the converted material without copy and paste? --Dual Freq 04:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all you wouldn't want to make this substitutable.  It is much more clear and obvious that the conversion was correctly performed to leave it as is.  Moreover Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. -- KelleyCook 14:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. I'll continue to use the template. --Dual Freq 04:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subst? 

message: What about a conversion of fathoms to feet and meters? Thanks in advance. --Dual Freq 04:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fathoms 

message: *The convert template needs to make use of  .  I'm trying to use square feet in my document but due to a normal space being used the 'square' and 'feet' frequently appear on different lines.  
Use of NBSP is required by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style in the Units of Measurement section.
*I would really like the option to display "ft²" for original unit instead of "square feet".  Currently, when converting from 'sqft' to 'sqm' it shows "RedPoptarts square feet (RedPoptarts m²)" which is awkward because of inconsistency.
-- RedPoptarts 09:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha.. the idea behind fully spelling out the first unit and abbreviating the one within the parentheses is because it goes along with the Manual of Style.  I will, however, add & nbsp ; between words. -- drumguy8800 C T 08:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just kidding.. adding it in would mean that sometimes pages would link to thins like square foot .. which doesn't exist.  I'm not sure how Wikis respond to <nobr>...</nobr> tags but they effectively function the same way.  one could add |br=no to the end or something to prevent line breaking. -- drumguy8800 C T 08:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBSP Needed, "Square Feet" -> "ft²" 

message: There needs to be a way to work in whatever tense this is: "The 908-foot tall building".. currently unless the quantity is one, the unit will show up in its plural form.  Also, there needs to be an option to abbreviate everything.  This sounds like a disgusting lot of coding and if statements. -- drumguy8800 C T 08:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, both of these issues have been resolved: adding |sing=on fixes the grammar/tense issue and adding |abbr=on fixes the abbreviation issue. -- drumguy8800 C T 06:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coding that needs to be done 

message: Something's wrong with the display of a conversion where the base is a measurement of speed not equal to one:
;mi/h
: 
: 
: 
;km/h
: 
: 
: 
;ft/s
: 
: 
: 
;m/s
: 
: 
: 
You'll notice that the opposite of what's intended happens when you tack on the |sing=on tag.. instead of the unit displaying singularity it displays plurality. When you don't ask it to, it displays plurality instead of singularity. The coding appears to be inline with the other coding around it.. (find mile per hour using your browser's find feature (Ctrl+F) when editing) .. can't seem to figure out exactly where the coding is frayed. Anyone else? -- drumguy8800 C T 08:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this too, and came to comment, but I see I'm not the first. I'm not expert enough to fix the coding, but on the bright side, we can just use the sing=on workaround for now... PaladinWhite 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something's wrong.. 

message: The wrapping issue has been fixed. Now all conversions are within . -- drumguy8800 C T 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrapping 

message: Just wanted to say what a fantastic job has been done on this template, I've begun applying it to some articles I'm working on and it makes my life a lot easier, not to mention that of my poor little solar calculator. Orderinchaos 11:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  :) 

message: I noticed a couple of oddities seem to be appearing today, the problem appears to arise when lk=on is present:
* 3.267 square kilometre|square kilometres (807 acre) from 
* 208 metre (682 foot (unit of length)|ft) from 
They did work before when I put them in, so probably just a recent change has done something unexpectedly drastic. Orderinchaos 22:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, think I found it. Sorry for bothering you guys :)  Orderinchaos 22:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple of odd ones 

message: Why doesn't this support weight? (i.e. pounds) ? --Ysangkok 11:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeap, I buy my milk by the U.S. gallon and not by the pound.  I would still include conversions for Imperial volumes for a few reasons.  Not everyone in the UK, Canada, and elsewhere have abandoned the imperial system.  Many people there still prefer the Imperial gallon to the liter.  However, more importantly, there are going to be times when a source only provides the information in Imperial volumetric units and those units will need to be converted to U.S. Customary and metric units.  Something to think about...—MJCdetroit 14:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on your posting at Hanford Site, I now understand what you were getting at. —MJCdetroit 14:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI... here in the UK we're rather confused about units.  Some fluids are sold in litres (eg. fuel, milk from the supermarket), and some are sold in pints (eg. beer, milk delivered by the milkman) - milk is never in gallons unless you're a farmer.  So, please add imperial units as well.  Astronaut 13:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: Anybody have a suggestion for convention on converting a range of values?  For example: 2 to 10 feet or 3-4 inches  --SB 03:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be difficult to do, but I'd recommend creating a new template for it, to avoid enlarging this one any more than it already is. All it would take is the ability to write something like , something similar to what we already use here. I might try my hand at it while I'm at work tomorrow. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unit ranges 

message: When a number with conversion is supplied, wouldn't it generally be preferable to provide it the abbreviated form? With the default in the abbreviated form, it would make it easier to add the template to infoboxes. -- User:Docu
:It defaults to standards set by the WP:MoS.  Cheers! -- drumguy8800 C T 08:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default to abbreviated form 

message: How come this
{{convert|6000|ft/s|m/s|0|sp=us|lk=on|sing=off|abbr=off}}
renders this:
? Shouldn't it be "feet" if I say "sing=off"? And is this is same issue as above? --Ysangkok 09:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is the same issue as above.  I'll take a look at it when I have some time, but it appears to be elusive.  Thanks for the reminder. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked through the code to try to fix this but couldn't find an error.  If you take out the lk=on part it will correct itself in the short term.  I'll give it a look when my eyes are fresh and maybe I'll see the error. —MJCdetroit 19:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug? 

message: The table says that "km:h" is abbreviated to "km/hr". However, in usage it is in fact abbreviated to "km/h". Take a look yourself:  --Ysangkok 14:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —MJCdetroit 19:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbr 

message: --> </br> This should read 49 acres. Please fix. —MJCdetroit 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this error is the same as the reports discussed above.  I haven't taken a look at the code yet, but thus far the error hasn't been found which causes this. -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  acre needs to be acres 

message: Could someone also add the conversion code for power units to the template? (like kW, hp, and PS)  --MoRsE 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weight units too (lbs, kg, t) --MoRsE 22:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This template is already way oversized, which causes problems when inserting large numbers of conversions in an article.  Instead of having a all-in-one, this template needs to be broken down into component parts (I'll eventually work on this, though I'm acting-trainer at work, so free time is limited). -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power units 

message: Using  gives  when it should be 65 km/h and using  gives  whin it should be 40 mph. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow... yeah the conversions were inexplicably wrong just for that one. The reverse ones worked correctly, as did m/s -> knots, but the other three needed to be fixed. Thanks for letting us know! Orderinchaos 02:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I thought I'd entered something wrong. A useful feature for conversions like that would be the ability to do multiple conversions at the same time something like . Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What am I doing wrong 

message: Non-US people may well find this to be objectionably US-centric, even if it's an established usage among some Americans (I've never heard of it). Will someone change the instances in the table to simply "US"? Tony 08:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could always be bold and make the change yourself.  The documentation isn't protected. --Holderca1 19:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, the letters U.S. should be added in front because technically that is what it is called US customary system.  Here in America, we simply/informally called them 'English measurements', but that would be very incorrect outside of the U.S. because of the Imperial system. —MJCdetroit 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —MJCdetroit 20:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Customary"? 

message: Would it be possible to include an example of how to use the template?  And/or to tidy up the error messages?  
I've struggled using  because the error message said "unexpected rounding parameter" (or something like that) rather than "use the abbreviations for the units, dummy" which was what I needed!  (No, not seriously suggesting templates should abuse editors, honest!).  I got it right eventually, after trying lots of different rounding parameters with and without spaces etc, but if the lead example showed the code, I think I'd have got it right first time.  Yes, I know the table is headed "use in coding", but it's easy to read things wrongly.  Just:  "Example:  displays as  " would do the trick.
Is there any chance that the error message can be improved, perhaps to something more general like "unrecognised input" rather than the red herring of mentioning the rounding figure?  PamD 09:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As no-one commented either for or against this, I've added examples myself.  PamD 11:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrative example please? and improved error message? 

message: Change mi/hr to mph 199.125.109.25 17:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. —MJCdetroit 19:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed 

message: Would it be difficult to provide an option to suppress the first value? i.e.  = "1.6 km"? Thanks! —Rob (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and if possible doing so would in most circumstances be in violation of the WP:MOSNUM. —`MJCdetroit 19:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a special circumstance - there is a table cell separator between the two units. But other editors have created  to deal with the situation. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only need converted value 

message: The guidance notes say it will print: 'mi/hr' and 'km/hr'. It actually prints: 'mi/h' and 'km/h'. Can somebody change the guidance please? Lightmouse 17:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —MJCdetroit 19:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Lightmouse 19:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect guidance notes say 'mi/hr' and 'km/hr' 

message: I was confused over the use of a period in the guidance. In the 'Tricks' section, it mentions:
*'abbr=on.'
I did not know whether the trailing period was required. It took me a little digging around to find out that the code should actually be:
*'abbr=on'
Could you eliminate the period to make it clearer please? Thanks for great code. Lightmouse 20:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, but actually I think that the "docs" are not protected so you should be able to edit them. —MJCdetroit 20:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that. I did not realise I could do it myself. I was a little confused by the 'docs' being somewhere other than where I was reading. I think I have worked it out now. In future, I will try to make such changes myself. Lightmouse 21:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion over period in guidance 

message: This syntax  produces  - kilometres is spelt out in full, but miles is abbreviated.  Either both should be spelt out or both should be abbreviated.  Even then, "km" is conventional, "mi" is not. --Red King 20:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is based on the Manual of Style and is not likely to change.  If you need to abbreviate both then insert abbr=on  for  —MJCdetroit 00:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent abbreviation 

message: As a copyeditor, I used to hate this template because most people use it naively, without a thought for appropriate precision or idiom. Now that I've gotten to know it, though, I love it.
 
Item 8 in the table of contents on this page mentions that a wrapping problem has been fixed by nowrapping the whole thing. Puzzling. I came here to suggest that the template not nowrap indiscriminately, because it recently played hob with a page I was editing by making the previous line ridiculously short (it was next to an image). I'm not exactly sure how it's set up right now, but I'd like to see it nowrap only between value and unit, between value and degree sign and abbreviation, and other places that would be good that I haven't thought of yet. Maybe a switch for that? By the way, what was the wrapping problem before? --Milkbreath 13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean. It would be an improvement if it allowed a line break between the unconverted and converted units. Lightmouse 17:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What wrapping problem? 

message: "mi" for miles is ugly and unnatural. I would like to produce "8 kilometers (5 miles)".  But the template allows only: 
: or  or  or . 
:(from  or  or 
 or .  
I'd much appreciate an option allowing me to non-abbreviate the second measurement (or someone pointing out how I can do so already!).  PamD 13:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed this is answered above.  I think the problem is that "mi" is never usually used, unlike "km"!  PamD 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unabbreviated converted units? 

message: I noticed that there is a BOT removing this template from articles (such as Airway Beacon).  Does anyone know why it's running?  Are there appropriate and inappropriate place to use "convert"?--Appraiser 13:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was being discussed at User_talk:Mets501#Out_of_curiosity....  The reasons being stated that it causes the page to load slower. I don't see much of a difference (couple seconds) but then it maybe different for a dial-up user.  In any case, at the moment, I not in favor of the bot's edits. I don't think there is any place where it would be inappropriate use this or any other template.  —MJCdetroit 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion that you're referencing at User_talk:Mets501#Out_of_curiosity... is growing beyond the immediate issue of the bot, and discussion template issues now. Interested folks should probably make themselves aware of the discussion and then continue it here. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot running 

message: Would I be able to use the code in my monobook? I have quite an extensive monobook for metrication but I have never been able to take a numerical value from an article and do arithmetic with it. Lightmouse 10:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the code in monobooks 

message: On Project Excelsior, I tried to use , but it generates "714 (Expression error: Unexpected round operator m/s)". Is there an error in my usage or in the template? Thanks. -- JHunterJ 11:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming you're trying to convert from mph to metres/second, then it should be . --Malleus Fatuarum 11:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) The error occurred because you tried to use "m:h" instead of "mi:h".  I've fixed this in the article.  Something I didn't fix in the article, however, was the lack of links to terms.  Remember to use "lk=on" for the first instance of any conversion type (as I did with this particular conversion in the article), so that readers unfamiliar with a specific measurement can learn more. -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, my eyes may finally be going -- the little i and the : ran together when I looked it up.  Thanks for the fix.  As for "lk=on", WP:UNITS doesn't seem to specify (or prohibit) linking them when first used, and the links don't seem all that necessary to the subject -- the article is about the project, but not about the record-setting speeds or heights reached in particular. -- JHunterJ 23:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, well that's the wiki way.  I recall when they were specified, but I suppose that was contested and overturned at some point, perhaps!  In any case, I simply find those links to be useful occasionally, regardless of article focus, though admittedly not so much for common measurements like miles and km's. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error encountered 

message: I inserted a requested change from above (dated July 15th) to have a slash instead of parenthesis option.  That request also included a request for a table display, but I'm sorry, I couldn't figure that part out; it never looked right when I tested it.  Maybe someone else can.  Therefore, I changed the code to accept a slash function.  Here's how it can be done: include the line |disp=slash (or these two for shorthand: |disp=s or |disp=/):
:-->
:--> 
: -->
This should help some of you. —MJCdetroit 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested display changes part 2 

message: I would like to be able to put a comma in the numeric value. For example: . Is such a feature possible? Note that we often assume the comma appears after groups of 3 digits but Indian numbers sometimes have groups of 2 digits. Lightmouse 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, It's not possible. —MJCdetroit 16:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks for responding. Lightmouse 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commas won't work but see my suggestion above. Jɪmp 01:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature request: commas in numeric value 

message: Moved from user talk page (begin)
Thanks for your conversion of acres to square kilometres in the petroleum history article. Ididn't know that function was available.
A question: I'd like to use the same kind of conversion formula to convert my references of crude oil (1 cubic metre = 6.29 barrels) and natural gas (1 cubic metre = 35.49 cubic feet), and I'd like to do it both ways. Is there a way to do this? I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks. Peter
Moved from user talk page (end)
:The above question was posted on my talk page. I do not believe there is such a function. I wish there was. Can anyone help? Lightmouse 16:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created ; the rest will follow.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume units 

message: We have been worried by the size of the code and it has been criticised for its effect on articles. I notice that when this code was expanded, it produced things like:
*10 miles (16 km)
That expression seems to me to be more than is strictly necessary.
Firstly, there should not be a non-breaking space between the unconverted and converted units. Please the code be amended so that it does not add it?
Secondly, can the code be amended to stop adding 'span style' stuff?
Lightmouse 09:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "span style stuff" is a direct result of the  template that is used.  It looks as if this was added to the template code on the 9th of April with this discussion and probably was based on an earlier discussion.  It can be very easily removed.  If removed it looks like the the template code could have a possible break between the last letter of the first unit (the 's' in miles) and the parenthesis of the next conversion; (16...) in your example.  Expand your example and you should see 10 miles (16 km).  The   allows for a normal breaking space.  If we remove the automatic "nowrap" function of the template code, there is no reason why anyone can not just manually use the nowrap template when it is desired by entering something like .  I know removing this would allow  to be more "infobox friendly".  Any objections to removing this automatic feature? —MJCdetroit 01:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that. Lightmouse 08:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to simplify the code and its effect on articles 

message: For converting weights—please check out  (aka .  —MJCdetroit 21:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't the functionality of  be put into this template so that there is only one conversion template? Chris_huhtalk 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and No.  It could but for performance reasons it is not.  Including the weights would make  blog down.  In fact it has been proposed to break up convert in to smaller templates.  —MJCdetroit 20:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In its current form this is true but the problem can be solved.  There is a way that weight ... and mass, volume, energy, angular acceleration and whatever else you like can be added to this template without blowing it up.  It's in the works.  As for smashing  into little pieces ... well the little pieces do exist and likely will continue to co-exist with this considering that some of them have features (e.g. 's two- and three-dimensional options) which don't seem to be a priority to include here.  Jɪmp 17:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my mind, the idea is to split this up into standardised groups, such as , , etc.  Smaller, thus being able to be used more times within any given article, but still versatile enough to avoid having to look up or memorise the huge number of micro templates like your example of . -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These templates are (or at least should be) all categorised together saving the memory strain (which isn't really that great since they are generally named  ... those few which differ should probably be moved or deleted).  This template can be reduced and extended at the same time.  It is possible to reduce it in size (i.e. pre-expand size) whilst at the same time increasing its scope.  The need to churn out the likes of ,  &  would be eliminated.  This is what I have in mind though it'll take an overhaul of the template. Jɪmp 23:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it would be fantastic if this template could be rewritten to optimise its code, but I just don't see how much that can be done.  I love this template's functionality and ultimate simplicity in use, I just think it would simplify matters dramatically to split into distinct measurement types. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it, there's a lot that can be done in terms of code optimising (where by "optimising" I pretty much refer to reduction of pre-expand size).  What I have in mind should allow us to add units to our heart's content without affecting the pre-expand size.  If I'm right, then splitting the thing up into "measurement types" (i.e. length, speed, etc.) would complicate rather than simplify matters requiring editors to specify the "measurement type" they are converting.  Instead, I'd rather see things like  &  to incorporate some of the special features you find on some of those single-purpose templates.  Jɪmp 02:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I say it's very much doable but will involve a complete rewrite.  I'm working on it. Jɪmp 03:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ConvertWeight 

message: The lk=on feature links both units. In some cases, I want to link one unit but not the other. For example, a previous editor might have linked 'nautical mile' and 'knots'. I might want to retain those links but do not want to link the unremarkable units 'km' and 'km/h'.
Would it be possible to modify the lk=on feature (e.g. 'lk=1' links the first unit and 'lk=2' links the second unit)? Lightmouse 16:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: link one unit but not the other 

message: A while back, a bot was expanding the convert template. This resulted in a discussion and the bot was stopped. However, a lot of articles now contain things like:
*10 :miles :(20 :km)
For example, see Central Europe Campaign and other articles in the User:MetsBot's contribution list. Would it be possible to clean these up? Lightmouse 17:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd start by asking User:Mets501, since it was his bot and since his bot already has the approval for that task.  —MJCdetroit 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion. I have left a note on his talk page. For the record, I had no problem with the concept of the expansions. It is the 'span', 'nowrap' and unnecessary 'nbsp' clutter in the edit page that I want removed. It is hard to read and it makes further search and replace more complicated. Lightmouse 18:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think that such a reverse change is necessary.  The edits to change it are not worth the potential benefits, I think. —METS501 (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing to add code to my script to eliminate these. Any tips on how I might do it? Can you see any problems if I simply deleted all instances of  and ? Lightmouse 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot needed to clean up after bot?