User talk:Lightmouse
I notice that you recently went through this article with a Wikipedia program to make some automatic changes and metric conversions. I wonder whether you would do that with the other articles in this series: I'm especially concerned that I have used cubic metres in some places and cubic feet (for natural gas) and barrels (for oil and liquids) in others. Also, there is the matter of miles and kilometres, etc.
The correct conversion for oil is as follows: 1 cubic metre = 6.29 barrels.
1 cubic metre of natural gas = 35.49 cubic feet.
Please note that the spelling of metre, kilometre, etc. is correct in this note.
16:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)~
- I have generally avoided automated conversion of 'barrel' due to its ambiguity. But I think it is certainly a common unit in need of conversion. As far as miles and kilometres and all the other units are concerned, it would be easy enough to go through the series. I will take a look and let you know. Lightmouse (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- These conversions need more thought. For example, at Ghawar you now have "71,000,000,000 US barrels (11,300,000,000 m³)" - half a linefull for what was a single, easily read and widely understood quantity ("170 billion barrels"). The template is the problem. We should do it manually until they fix it.
- I'd suggest the form "71 billion barrels (11,300 GL)". There's no need for "US barrel" or "US oil barrel" - it's an oil field, so obvious. And barrel is wikilinked higher in the article. --Gergyl (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. The 'US barrel' is a feature of the template. I will ask for this to be corrected. The use of zeros rather than words (e.g. billion) is also a feature of the template. I have asked the developers for a word option to be provided. In the meantime, feel free to update the articles as you think best. Lightmouse (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen your edits to Petroleum, Tar sands, etc using the convert template. I appreciate the intention, but please be careful. You've been changing the number of zeroes in some of the input figures (you changed 25 to 25000, 15 to 15000). Also please do not add convert inside direct quotations (or if you must, please surround it with sincle square brackets to preserve the integrity of the quotation.) Thanks, LeadSongDog (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The change to the number of zeros is an error with the conversion script. It has now been corrected. As you suggest, conversions inside quotes should not have been done with round parentheses, they should have been done in a different way. Thanks for spotting that. Lightmouse (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
HE-AAC changes
In changing terms on the HE-AAC article, you also changed the title text of 2 citations. Mis-quotes are decidedly worse than inconsistently used abbreviations, so I reverted your change. Please be more careful in the future. On a lesser note you also left a number of similar terms untouched. Rcooley (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for spotting and correcting those. The ones that were not touched were a consequence of conservative coding, I have now updated the article accordingly. Thanks again. Lightmouse (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the cleanup. Squash Racket (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)