User talk:EzekielT

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

overpass turbo versions

Hi. Thanks for updating the overpass turbo wiki page. I have a question about the versions numbers you added (for example currently it shows Version: 12.93 in the info box). Where do these version numbers come from? Cheers, Martin -- Tyr (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tyr: You're the brilliant developer of overpass turbo, aren't you? I'm so glad you asked. 12.93 may seem random, but in this case it's not :). I guess I should've discussed it first, but since there was no official version number, I halved the digits of the 1,293 commits into 12.93 for convenience and update references. What do you think of my idea? Considering you maintain the project, your opinion is pretty much official. Thanks :)! — EzekielT (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, for the late answer.
Ok, I see. But is it really necessary to have version numbers for the project? Because, if it really was, the I could "officially" version the code, so you don't have to invent other numbers. The "number" of commits can be a bit misleading number btw, since not every commit on the github repository is actually code that is in the "released" master branch. What do you think?
-- Tyr (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
   But is it really necessary to have version numbers for the project?
Maybe for referencing improvements, updates, new features added, etc.?
   The "number" of commits can be a bit misleading number btw
Then maybe we should exclude failed and pending commits? There are a total of 70 failed commits and 3 pending commits, so 1,297 - 73 = 1,224 -> 12.24? What do you think :)? Or maybe you can officially version the code, if you want? — EzekielT (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me getting involved in this discussion. But as I'm one of the creators of the Software infobox template, I'd like to clarify the following:
  • There is no requirement that the version number follows a particular format. For example, JOSM's version is simply listed as "14066".
  • The parameter can (and should) be omitted if the software has no official version number. It is not required for the template to function.
--Tordanik 16:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Labelling pages for deletions

Please stop labelling pages of abandoned proposals for deletions (e.g. Proposed_features/Marked_trail). Even unsuccessful proposals serve as a historical record of the community's decision making process; they may be archived, but should usually not be deleted. Their content should still be searchable. However, if you let delete these pages, their content will be gone. Please revert your changes. --Nakaner (talk)

Archived them instead. Thanks :)! — EzekielT (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Despite the "historical" arguement, a lot of the pages that had deletion tags that where it reverted didnt have any content, or if it did the content had no historical value. That's one of the problems with blanket statements like "history must saved." A lot of pages get clumped into the "historically useful" category that shouldn't, because its way to broad of qualifier of what had value and is to up to interpretation. Next time, if a delete tag is added to a page, a better option might be to let the administrator that handles deleting pages decide. Out of all the pages I added the tag to, 99% of them ended up getting deleted. including some that people were outrage over "because history." So, clearly it was much to do about nothing in the end and the pages where worth deleting. Or else the administrator would have just restored them. In summary, next time let the people who's job it is to decide these things decide these things, because your probably wrong. Its not like I didnt think it through properly with each page ahead of time either. Even if I hadn't though, outrage and reverts are never good way to deal with things you disagree with. It usually never goes in the favor of the person doing it. Maybe in the short-term, but not in the long-term. For example look at where Verdy_P is now, despite all his insistence that he was right, "winning" arguments on a few pages, and not respecting the decisions of the admins. It clearly didnt work out for him. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Just two comments @Adamant1 - the wiki admins are unpaid volunteers as you are, they have no "job". Second, there is no calculation for you statistical claims. --Polarbear w (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Polarbear w, aaww only two?
The admins might be unpaid volunteers, but I still assume they know more then we do (or at least more then I do) about administrative tasks. Otherwise, they wouldn't be admins and we would. That's the important thing, bucko.
Really? How do you know I didn't compare the amount of reverts on the pages that had the delete tag to the amount of pages that where actually deleted? Hhhhmmm? I'm not saying I did, but I could have. So there.
Even if I'm off by a few percentage points or if its like 50/50 for that matter, it still wouldn't warrant the mob of angry hand ringing. Also, I was the one that went through the pages originally and I checked them all to make sure they qualified for the tag, or I wouldn't have put it there in the first place. Everyone acted like I just did it randomly though to run rick-shod over the wiki or something. I'm sure they didn't actually check the pages themselves though to see if I was even wrong, because people with knee jerk reactions don't tend to do proper review like that. I know Verdy_P didn't. Given all that, realistically all of them would have gotten deleted if it weren't for you meddling kids and your dog. I can almost guarantee you know one would have missed those pages if they had been deleted. Let alone even notice they had been deleted.
Anyway, arguing with people on the wiki is so 2017/18. Yawn. So I'm out. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)



ValueDescription revert

Hi EzekielT, could you clarify why you reverted? Which items have caused errors, and how many of theme were there? Every change to the ValueDescription template places a big stress on the server, so lets try to minimize changes if the issue only affects a small subset of items that can be easily fixed. Thx! --Yurik (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! The errors occurred for keys and tags created after Yurikbot stopped adding items. Since the bot hadn't added items for them, the template glitched. The language bar's links were malfunctioning and unlinked, making it impossible to reach other languages from the tag/key's page, and the tag's name was missing from the key/value description box...
Best Regards,
EzekielT (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The issue was due to the module not adding "type" and "templatename" parameters when calling the {{Description}} template. I have fixed it and undid your undo. Please let me know if you spot any issues - best place is usually the talk page of the template, or just ping me on my talk page - I usually reply very fast. Thanks! --Yurik (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)