User talk:TigerfellBot

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please discuss Task 'Undefined Elements' here.

Replacement text

Your suggestion is to replace the text with the previously static text that would have shown. Would it perhaps be better to surround the previous template with nowiki tags so editors who come across them can work out what they should be now? Taking the first page with errors that I picked at random, Talk:Tag:tourism=camp_site (which I've now updated) currently has

site relation: {{Relation|type|site}}

which needs updating to

[[Relation:site|site relation]]

and I think changing it to

site relation: Relation not defined yet for site 

might make that slightly harder to work out what used to be there (would have to check history) than say changing to

site relation: <nowiki>{{Relation|type|site}}</nowiki>

--EdLoach (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.
The scope of this edit is the change of template calls with the first parameter empty. Sorry, I did not point that out clearly. I did not know that users used this template in such an unusual way. {{Relation|type|site}} would have been expanded to
 relation site (iD, JOSM, Potlatch2, history, analyze)
Beware of the useless links (searching for a relation id = type). I think I missed some links, but you get the point. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 19:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion with Stevea

If I understand things correctly, a plan (which seems imminent or "soon," is it waiting for some sort of additional community approval?) to "fix" things so that a BrowseRelation call (which in turn calls Relation) that has an empty value will go back to the original behavior of returning a polite string of "Relation not defined yet" instead of a Lua error is "in the works." Thank you in advance and I welcome this return to the old behavior. I'm not sure if it is a code change or a bot changing all the wiki so it no longer has empty values in BrowseRelation calls, but either way seems a satisfactory solution. Stevea (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, please remember that both of us value the community's opinion, that means that I will not execute any plans while we still discuss about it (it was so obvious that I did not write that down). But if you want to know it, I planned to start the preparation October 10 around 10 am (UTC) and do the rest of the change (including the automated editing) at the following weekend (October 13 + 14). That would have assured a minimum of one week of discussions (or one week of no one speaking up). This scheduling is obsolete now anyway.
Yes, it is a "bot changing all the wiki", but it does not bring back the old situation as it will change the existing code only once. So, if you were to add {{relation|}} after the bot change, it would be broken. Would that be acceptable for you? --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 23:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for the good communication. One reason that this has been done (and done, and done...) is to "educate" new wiki users that they don't have to memorize or learn the (not-too-difficult to learn, truly) BrowseRelation syntax (it is simply a couple of curly braces and a vertical bar and a number) by putting in the empty valued version, then they just have to plug-in the number of the relation. I'll stop doing that, your bot will run, and at least between the two of us, things will be great! Other wiki-authors, I'm not so sure. I'm not sure how to "promulgate far and wide" the message of these changes, it did take a couple of weeks for you and I to both get connected (first by my post to talk-us that I noticed Lua errors, then Yuri and I exchanging three or four emails, then me discovering that the Relation Template talk page was an appropriate venue, then me getting connected to you, then you and I having this conversation here. That's a pretty long pipeline, and I think both of us would dislike for it to happen again, but I don't know the best way to prevent that in the future. Again, thanks. Stevea (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)