User talk:Verdy_p

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives ± : 2012 ; 2015 ; 2016 Jan-Jun, Jul-Dec ; 2017 Jan-May, Jun, Jul-Dec ; 2018

Key:turn

Hi, two questions regarding your recent edits on Key:turn:

  • You say that the text you added to the :lanes-specific section of "Current usage" is not redundant, but I don't see any information there that isn't already present in the "Turning indications per lane" section. Can you point out what information your paragraph adds to the page?
  • When reading the text you added to the "Values" section, I don't see how there's a special rule for value formatting at play. The value of foo:lanes is a list of values for foo, separated by |. The turn key is no exception here. So why is the wordy explanation and example needed?

--Tordanik 10:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Lanes have specific ordering restrictions and syntax where values are actually not first separated (in random order) by semicolons like other tags, the pipes require a specific order even if subvalues delimited by pipes may still use the semicolon for their own unordered list of values.
various editors or users are confused by this specific syntax for ordered lists whose items contain unordered sublists, and the fact that semicolons can be freely reordered or "deduplicated".
Consider this example "none|left;continue;right|left;continue;right|left",
where an editor (or QA tool) may think that the "continue" is duplicate, just like also the "right|left" and can be eliminated automatically,
producing "none|left;continue;right|left" (this is the same number of lanes, 3 here, but the directions are now completely different and only the central lane has multiple turn directions)
The presence of pipes forbids the elimination of these apparent false duplicates.
However in "none|left;right;left" there's effectively a duplicate for "left" and is equivalent to "none|left;right" or "none|right;left" but cannot be reordered (after deduplicating the unorderd sublists) to "left;none|left"...
Lanes definitely do not follow the same standard as normal values for other tags (this is also the case for "opening_hours") and we must say that to instruct users (or developers of editors) so they use specific syntaxic parsers for these tags.
Verdy_p (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:State Entry NA

According to the CSS specification, vertical-align doesn't inherit. What are you referring you, then? What specific usecase is there that specifically requires vertical-align:baseline to be defined?

I'm asking the same for text-align:center. Both the parent and the child are fixed at 32x20px size, so there's nothing to align. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The file may not load when there are some custom values, and in that case the image size will not be used at all but an alternate text appears; or the icon exists but may already be smaller than 32x20px and it won't be enlarged (note that the icon is NOT necessarily an svg). There are other compatibily tricks that cause this template to have strange behavior in some pages whose lists of icons will be broken without this (also when we use an image on this wiki, it as an incorrect vertical alignment, meaning that it does not have the expected height but is in fact in a higher box; without the height, icons that wrap in a column may not wrap to the left margin but to the bottom right of a previous icon leaving some large gap, then some icons later will be wrapping correctly or not; controling the effective display box size of icons is difficult when we actually don't know the effective size of the imager that will effectively be used, and the actual font size of substitutes which may appear). And not that this is not the only template to be used, it appears in a series. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Note that you didn't actually answer my question. Under which circumstances can the vertical-align for this element be anything other than "baseline"? Like I said, this attribute doesn't inherit. If you use Firefox you can use the built-in Firebug debugger (presumably this should work with Chrome and its debugger too, but I don't use Chrome...) and go to a page like e. g. Main-Kinzig-Kreis and uncheck the "vertical-align:baseline" from the images. You should notice that nothing happens at all, and the vertical-align for these objects is still set to "baseline" because that is the default.
Also, the problem you mentioned is not a problem with raster images but a problem with image ratio in general, because MediaWiki will never change the image ratio on any image, be it SVG or a raster image. Preferably, we should just not allow images that are not already the correct size unless there's a really important template that calls this template with a nonstandard image size (but I couldn't find such a template anywhere on the wiki...) If we do want to allow this, the CSS should be moved to a place like MediaWiki:Common.css instead of being embedded inline potentially a thousand times (some pages have a lot of calls to this particular template, and every byte adds up). -- Prince Kassad (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
that template is already sufficiently packed even for pages that include them many times, those pages that explode are generally much too large and cover too large areas which should have their own subproject pages. and common.css is certianly not a place to put that where it would still be used on a minority of pages and there are other ways in various project pages to show the progresses, for tables that are likely to have a limited lifetime focusing on something else (you have diufferent goals for transports, buildings, commerces and services managed by differnt people at very different times and in differently focxused areas with their own data sources. — Verdy_p (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Please, start using edit descriptions or stop editing

You again made entire series of edits (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing&diff=1547148&oldid=1547144 is one of them) without edit description. Please, stop doing this Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, I commented twice the two goals of these edits the other ones were minor readjustments/reordering... — Verdy_p (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing&diff=1547129&oldid=1547126 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing&diff=1547130&oldid=1547129 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing&diff=1547135&oldid=1547130 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing&diff=1547144&oldid=1547135 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing&diff=1547148&oldid=1547144https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing&diff=1547150&oldid=1547148 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing&diff=1547152&oldid=1547150 is an entire series of edits without description. Please stop editing like that Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
You just want to read what you want from the history, stop this harassment: if you received a notiofication, the first one was commented and you got the others in the same series from the start. — Verdy_p (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Move

Hello, can u move Tr:Main Page to TR:Anasayfa? I can't move, Idk why. --Hedda Gabler (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No don't use the "TR:" prefix entirely in capital. Turkish is recognized on the wiki using the "Tr:" prefix (this is explained on the link at top of pages about how to translate). — Verdy_p (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I moved it to Tr:Anasayfa (after fixing a few things in the Turkish page and adding some missing translations). — Verdy_p (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Quote

Sample

please, see the history, it worked before your changes: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Quote&oldid=693757 --Reneman (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that Quote has always contained multiple paragraphs, and alwaus contained "div" elements sour signature and source.
It has also always contained lists in the inner text.
One solution is to use only parameter 1= when it is a single line (in which case it will be surrounded internally by a "div", and parameter text= if it contains multiple paragraphs (in which cases it will be indented another way using indent= and the text will not be inside a "div" but on a separate line).
In summary in could not be indent safely with a single line. — Verdy_p (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
It's possible you're right. But you can't change templates and then lose functions that were there before. Similarly, it is not desirable for you to change other users' discussion pages just to "correct" your template change. Find a solution to make the template work in your original version, or leave it as it was. This also applies to other templates (e. g. MyLang). Thanks. Read in German. --Reneman (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
This was the case when I did it 2 years ago (sic!) and this was already a problem at that time that needed a fix.
But the talk pages in questions where it was used have NEVER worked with it!
Since the begining the template was intended to quote more than one line and it was used this way before your talk page. — Verdy_p (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Your changes to the template were made on Jul 13,2016. My discussion page is from 26 Sep. 2015, the discussion at Segatus is from 3 July 2013, please stop telling untruths! If you continue like this, I will not get past a side protection for the affected templates and discussion pages. This is my last warning! Read in German. --Reneman (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The template was used long before (in 2011 !) your talk page (2015) to quote paragraphs including multiple lines since the beginning... In 2016, I had to fix it to support embedded lists (starting by asterisks), because they were already not rendering correctly when glued directly after the starting div tag in the middle of a line: the lists were not shown properly, and it was within articles, not just for unmaintained user talk pages.
So stop telling me that I tell untruths. You're definitely wrong here, you're telling untruths yourself. I've considered the case of your old talk pages by a compromise (distinguishing parameter "1=" and "text=", but also documenting/explaining the caveat, which was not the case before). In fact it has never worked correctly in 2015 even in your talk page that you want to demonstrate as a proof (incorrect indentation of the text after it) and my change in 2016 did not solve that.
Also even your talk pages were not correctly indented (you added text after the quote on the same line, that text was already rendered unindented on a separate paragraph. , the talk pages in questions were always (and are still incorrect) if you don't fix the indentation and line separation).
So you've not really looked what was occuring: all your recent reverts do not fix anything, they just restore a solved problem in more important pages than talk pages.
The main difference between my version and the previous one is that the text in parameter was embedded within a "div" element without any newline separation: in 2016 I dropped that div to allow this text to be in a separate line (the div was then unnecessary as everything was in a "'blockquote" and also followed by other "divs", and that's why any text written on the same line after the quote was not indented). This behavior however was never documented and tested properly, so I have documented this caveat (you removed a statement in the new caveat section, but it is real (and your talk page is also a proof where it has never worked as intended). — Verdy_p (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I see on my DISK at 4 examples that it worked correctly. This template was adopted by Wikipedia. At Wikipedia, they also saw the problem you recognized. The problem was not solved by changing the template. The solution was a new template: w:Template:Block indent. In my opinion, this would be a better solution to use a separate template for the extended usage. Read in German. --Reneman (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
But the template was already used before your talk page to do real multine block quotes. So the solution I've found with a compromiez was to detect if parameter 1 is used (one line only, e.g. in indented talk pages) or parameter "text" (multiple lines, needing an alternate way to indent it, with the new parameter indent taking value 0 by default). There was still a bug with an extra newline before the end of the "blockquote element. In both cases anyway it will generate a block element, so this is already a "blockquote", only the syntax allowed for the text in parameter 1 is more limited than in parameter "text" (which was already used for that purpose since 2011, long before your talk page in 2015 where you were using an undocumented "hack").
Sorry but without documentation and proper tests, my edit in 2015 was accurate according to its real use in articles as real multiline blockquotes. But now it's documented and tested (this was never done before you started reverting it, breaking other non-talk pages that you really did not check).
In summary we don't need another template (and also don't need to change the existing correct usages that existed before yours. We can cope with both cases. And yes this required my fix in 2015 for the initial intent where it was broken sometimes (I did not care about talk pages whose usage was not tracked, given the many problems that this wiki has had to track "what links here", if a behavior is not documented and not tested, nobody knows that someone like you has used a "hack" of blockquotes, including in the middle of paragraphs where it contradicts what is commonly a "blockquote" in HTML!). — Verdy_p (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Good evening, I've already told you that if you change a template, you'll be able to maintain the way it works. Please compare line 89 yourself: Appearance 2015 (using User: Reneman/Spielwiese) and the current view. It worked for creation in 2015. I beg you, please: The proposal is to work again as it did in 2015. Read in German. Merci --Reneman (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
So your talk page was using inline formatting with the "text=" parameter (where it was already unnecessary to name it): I've proposed above to distinguish the inline formatting (which works now) using parameter 1, and keep explicit "text=" parameter only for multiline text. The template is not used so much that it needs to make them equivalent when in fact inline text never needs a named parameter (this matches the use of most pages). I've documented it clearly, we cannot fix both your usage on recent talk pages and usages in other more important articles where it was broken. The template now distinguish it clearly. It's not so many pages to fix.
You propose another template but this would still require changing one of the two use cases. — Verdy_p (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Sorry for the late response, I think the subject is done. Thank you for your commitment. Greetings --Reneman (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

please use edit comments

Hi Verdy, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_right&action=history --21:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please use comments. Especially editors making many comments should take time to add useful edit summary. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This was presentational, mostly, and your revert was reverted by someone else; I did not do anything wrong. My intent was to make the sentence really clear by distinguishing plain language and actual code, and fixing missing underscores that should be visible in key tag prefixes or values (additionally they are not translatable, and this was marked explicitly). As well I removed underscores that should not be there in plain text (because you blindly copy parts of URLs without taking care of their meaning). — Verdy_p (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. "[M]ake the sentence really clear by distinguishing plain language and actual code, and fixing missing underscores" would make up a nice edit comment. Then other people seeing your edit would not need to think about what you intended to change. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Grazie per la modifica alla mia pagina

Grazie per la modifica alla mia pagina personale, non avevo visto questo nella pagina documentazione del template. User:Simone_girardelli 11:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

template hell

I reverted https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dtrunk&type=revision&diff=1567510&oldid=1535677 and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dprimary&diff=1567512&oldid=1500029 as user added it in an incorrect place. Can you help him/her to add it to correct place? I have no idea how to navigate template hell of translations and you seem proficient at that Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverting these additions is not the best option: it's safer to copy the content to the appropriate transalted page, and then try traanslating it to English in the English page (it should not be difficult do do from Spanish to English, even if you use an automatic translator to help you, and then fix the result to get correct English. — Verdy_p (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
In this case, there's absolutely no "template hell", both the English and Spanish page use plain wikitables and no template for autotranslating and formatting that section. — Verdy_p (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: the English page is alreasy partially translated to English, with some sections showing other languages (there's nopt necessarily a matching page in that language). Reverting such additions does not help anyone, we can cooperate to move what's needed, and after all the Spanish-speaking contributors does not necessarily knows English and it's fine to paste a copy here of what was added to the Spanish page to maintain the synchronization: it's up to English translators to provide the English translation, just like it's up to speakers of other languages to translate the English text that appears by default in their translated page. That's the natural way to progress in cooperation. — Verdy_p (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

MapLesotho Pages

Veryd, quit reverting my edits. I have been a project lead on Maplesotho for 4 years. I am consolidating the content to a single source. Quit your faffing about --DaCor (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh and before you write a long spiel, don't bother. I have nothing against you, or your overall wiki edits. You do a lot of good work in the wiki, but leave the Lesotho related content alone. I have been writing guides, reformatting pages and consolidating the content over the last 2 weeks. I don't need to be wasting my time re-doing the same work because you didn't see fit to ask what I was doing and instead starting an edit war. Just stop --DaCor (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleting interesting contents even is important for historic interest, you don't need to blank it and create a non-sense redirect (on a page that will simply become unreachabvlen so it's impossible to get its history, it is just enough to name it properly.
Just with a new name for the article you can clearly state that this page is of historical interest (as it still keeps interesting info of what you've done). In aother words I've not destroyed anything in what you did ! and you can contionue on the next phase. — Verdy_p (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
review the main lesotho page. its already captured there. like i said, i am working on this for 2 weeks, tidying it all up. im not deleting information that is not captured elsewhere. there will be further work done to the lesotho pages over the following weeks. i suggest you wait until its all completed before making futher edits to those pages. like i said before, ive nothing against your work in the wiki, it works more efficiently because of what you do, just trust that i have similar objectives --DaCor (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Sweet mother mary, can you stop! Seriously! I'm trying to talk to you about it here and you keep f@#king with the pages. Leave them alone. Let me finish my damn work. I've wasted hours this evening pissing about with you when I could have been editing other content. Just stop. I'm beginning to think this is bordering on malicious actions as I've asked you to stop 3 times now and you keep interfering. Stop. Let me finish my work. Quit interfering with a work in progress. I shouldnt have to keep coming back to this page to ask you them same thing. Let me finish, then you do whatever the F@#@ you want --DaCor (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

subpages

Subpages in this article has to be categorised https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India:National_Highways_(statewise) --Naveenpf (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There's lot of incoherences in names, this is not so easy to do in one step. I try to do my best to improve the navigation in these Indian projects, so that they can be completed, improved, refreshed, or abandonned. — Verdy_p (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Naveenpf, @Heinz Z: I hope you appreciate the categorization and navbar for States I added to India project pages. Highways are now categorized and navigatable as you wanted.
Some other categories avec been cross-referenced where needed, so you will find relevant links more easily.
Note: the navbar for States of India is autotranslated, which means it can be used on translated pages (not just English). I've initialized some languages and filled the first entries with more translations, but this can be continued to support more languages (e.g. Hindi, Urdu or Tamil are the most frequently used with active translators).
I will finish initializing the articles for each state with the {{Place}} template (articles for some states or territories are still missing, so you may still see some red links, but their categories are all there, you have examples however in existing pages for states). — Verdy_p (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Comenius Pages

Although you speak German very well according to your own statement, I try it with my bad English. WHEN will you finally stop fiddling around in other people's sites (where you don't have the slightest idea about the content)? Are you the wiki police? You destroyed https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=MychOSM&action=history so much that I might have lost a project this morning. Where did the Navbar go? Why you can decide what is sufficient and what is not. Please choose 10 bad words and say them to you with a nice greeting from me. Your arrogance and self-importance are unbearable.

Oh, and before you write a miserably long sermon, don't bother. Why do you do so many things in the wiki that you don't have the slightest idea why someone else did something exactly as he did it? A little self-reflection on your part would be helpful. fredao 10:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not me at all !!! The history shows there's been lot of edits made by others, and all I did the last time was to put the page in its own category. Other edits are not mine !
Note that hte navbar for languages has never been in that page, and it was added last year by a ginle edit made last year by someone else.
I've not made any change since months (the last one was to add its category, so I've not broken anything.
Really stop complaining without any proof or good reason, read the history correctly. Your attitude is just needlessly doing a personal attack without reason and on false bases. You have just most probably forgotten what YOU did yourself in 2015, and then you forgot these pages (which initially were not correctly linked between each other and not properly categorized, my only edits already linked them together, I've not removed any links!). You are the only editor of this page before for most edits made in 2015, and I've not deleted anything ! — Verdy_p (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@fredao Instead of complaining for things that I had NOT done myself, I was looking at what was wrong, and this was made by someone else breaking some links with incorrect redirects (mixing Galician and Spanish). I have restored the situation and made the navbar usable across all existing versions. In summary I did not make anything wrong more than one year ago. If you're looking for the Galician page it was not deleted by me or anyone (only one page was incorrectly renamed by someone else), I did not delete any navbar.
But I just kindly added (for you!) what was missing, and fixed a lot of incorrect links in what you wrote yourself in these pages, including bad basic Wiki syntax, incorrect CSS, incorrect HTML, various typos, correct categorization by language... all is navigatable again.
But you won't excuse yourself and won't say any "thank you" for these fixes. If you continue this kind of offensive message I will signal your attitude, which was both arrogant and insultant, irrespectuous, and with false claims everywhere! I better know what I had done (and I have very good ideas about what was on the page), you just don't know at all what you did 2 years ago (not the "slighest idea" using your own terms)... "A big self-reflection on your part would be helpful" before posting such abusive and false complain. — Verdy_p (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Hi verdy_p THANK YOU very, very much for doing, what you did on the page. And especailly for restoring the Navbar! ... Once again THANK YOU for your help. Je vais maintenant contacter à nouveau l'Agence nationale de Bonn. J'espère qu'on pourra réparer la mauvaise impression. Enfin, il s'agit d'un futur projet scolaire avec des partenaires du Royaume-Uni, de l'IE, du PT, de l'ES et de l'DE dans le cadre duquel nous voulons offrir une formation humanitaire OSM aux étudiants de ces pays. Encore une fois, je vous remercie et je m'excuse pour le dérangement, mais j'ai vu tout le travail que j'ai fait pour ce nouveau projet "s'envoler". Si le nouveau projet est approuvé, je vais connecter ceux qui écriront le wiki pour le projet directement avec vous afin que tout soit en ordre dès le début. Meri - et pardon, mais j'étais désespérée et en colère en même temps ! ;-) fredao 11:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@fredao Je ne vois pas du tout quelle page s'est "envolée". Si je recherche dans tes contributions passées, ces pages sont toutes là. Je pense que tu as du oublier d'enregistrer tes modifications, ou bien tu n'as fait qu'une "prévisualisation" et tu ne l'as pas confirmée, tu es ensuite allé ailleurs, tu as fermé l'onglet de ton navigateur et cela n'a logiquement pas été conservé.
Note : pas besoin de me réexpliquer ce projet qui est déjà bien expliqué dans les pages elles-mêmes. Ce n'est pas un "futur" projet mais un projet depuis plusieurs années. Tes modifs que je vois sur ces pages sont datées de... 2015 ! Tu as certainement oublié depuis ce que tu avais fait. Regarde ton propre historique !
Note 2: je n'ai pas "restauré" la navbar, soit elle n'a jamais été là, ou bien elle était masquée par défaut car il y avait plusieurs navbars dans la page (c'est un effet par défaut du modèle utilisé qui oblige à la dérouler, un effet réglable si tu veux qu'elle soit déroulée en permanence quel que soit le nombre de navbars dans la page). — Verdy_p (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

pardon?

As always... https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relations:route/Monster_Relations&action=history

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Pages_with_too_many_expensive_parser_function_calls&action=history

Please make an additional edit there with a comment. Thank you.--aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This was true before I edited it (with a comment !) to split it in subpages as there were too many relations listed on the Monster Relations page (for "/sub 1000").
Look at the history: then the update was made in several successive steps to avoid breaking anything in termediate stages. Finally I linked the additional subpages that were splitted.
As I looked at the expansion I made the code wmaller (still easily editable) by packing tables to lmit the next occurance of page expansion limits (I made it first in the "/sub" 1000, then appleid it consistantly on the parent page for the parent page listing 1000+). There's not been any change of data in the tables. — Verdy_p (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I see your comment on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relations:route/Monster_Relations/sub_1000&action=history , yes. But there is still no comment in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relations:route/Monster_Relations&action=history for your last four edits. Please just tell people looking at the page history or their watchlists what you did there. The diff is very unreadable, so your comment is essential. Thank you. --aseerel4c26 (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Unreadable ? This is processed by very basic regular expression transform : no addition of data, just making it work and more compact and easier to edit. Well it was done AFTER the "/sub 1000" relation was splitted and foratted the same way (once I had made it work in a subset created in a new subpage, I could then remove these splitted part from the initial page. There were several edits necessary, the first one was commented, then it was following under the same applicable comment. — Verdy_p (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the mediawiki diff is quite unreadable. Please just comment you did to the page. Why is this that hard? --aseerel4c26 (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
No it's not hard but for this page, I forgot it because I thought I was editing a new page, it was mde in jsut a few seconds using regexps, after creating the new splitted pages with comments.
I can ensure that I did not delete anything, only made the page adopt the same format used for the new "/sub *" subpages that now work (the older "/sub 1000" was not working at all due to expansion size; for I disabled a part of the templates, then I splitted it on subpages were I could restore the tools; then I kept the "/1000" subpage in the same working format, and finally I updated the main page for "1000-5000" to the same working table format, only to reference the additional subpages created by the split).
If you don't trust me, open two windows side by side to compare the rendered result from the history: all is there, with the addition of the new link to subpages.
Note: this list is old and would need update (but not the same format that was tried and that did not work: I updated it to show that it is possible to refresh it correctly). — Verdy_p (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Verdy, please read W:en:Help:Edit summary. --aseerel4c26 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Stop, asking this, I usually don't comment pages I create, there's an automatic comment for that. Also if several successive edits are needed (because it cannot be done immediately or because I fix a typo immediately), no additional comment is needed after ther first one, this is the same edit in a group with the same applicable comment.
You could say that to every one one this wiki. I more frequently use comments that almost all users. and in this case this was a minor edit to add a link, and as it was mde in just a few seconds, I forgot it on that page while I linked the 3 subpages and only formated the table to reduce the server workload. As well this page was not maintained since VERY LONG, so you should not care about it, given you did not care before that it was NOT working at all, you should thank me for making it workable again ! All I did was basic maintenance becauise this page was in a list of pages in severe errors reported by Mediawiki itself (and caused significant resource usage on the server each time it was accessed, including by remote indexing bots). — Verdy_p (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
"no additional comment is needed after ther first one" - yes, fine. But I cannot find the first comment, please help me: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relations:route/Monster_Relations&action=history --aseerel4c26 (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
"Help me?" I've already comment that to you, and you are alone to ask, and I already replied above. Reverting is clearly not a solution, because you actually didn't care at all about that page for years, and nobody else ! Apparently you just want to make the wiki break again each time this page is hit ! — Verdy_p (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! You see that I care about that page because I edited it - and it worked.
I care about the wiki. The wiki is nothing without a wiki community. A wiki community does not work if you refuse to comment your edits.
Something non-meta: I am quite curious what in the old table formatting creates a higher workload that the new table formatting. --aseerel4c26 (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
There are visible statistics on page: reports generated by bots should look at them, and it's not always necessary to split each cell on separate line when it is better readable on the same line to have a global view. Usually I split cell rows on separate line when the cell contents are very variable, or if there's some consistant markup to apply, but here the fields are very short and almost all the same length.
The work load however was extrmeely bad in the "/sub 1000" subpage which crashed after trying to render it (using about 2 minutes of server CPU and lot of memory and I/O swaps to disk, so this explains the very long delay... until the page finally was broken and could not be rendered). And this crash occured at each visit (a failing page is not cached: each time it is visited, the server attempts again to render it, and such page as good targets for DOS attacks against the server, just by visiting them repeatedly without even editing them, so there's a real need to do the maintenance to avoid this severe issue!).
Believe me, I use the statistics of the server to tune all templates, and I have improved the most widely used one often from 30-50ms on average to just 1-3 ms by taking much care about what is expanded and what is not and how to reduce the non-trailing recursions and repeated parsing. MediaWiki has an interesting feature for rendering templates: it uses a cache, and there's a way to use it as much as possible to speedup everything. — Verdy_p (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for all those details! :-) So, I understood: rows on separate lines consume much more CPU than a row on one line, okay. I think I saw such a stats page before, but forgot it, do you have a link for me? That would be great! If the old page is a good DOS target, isn't the page version which is still in history still a good target? --aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes the old page in history is a possible DOS target, but such repetitve inspection of histories by remote bots is very unlikely I think (this could be avoided by forbidding inspecting the history by non logged-in users). But we could also ask an admin to redact some old breaking versions to hide them completely from the history.
Note: the most interesting statistics are within the "content" section of the generated HTML (you need to look at the HTML with your browser console, it is hidden in HTML comments and not rendered on the page), which also contains caching info and profiling info about the most costly operations. There are other reports from the MediaWiki API. — Verdy_p (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Note2: separate cells on separate lines do not cost a lost, but it exists in the lexer (basically within the complex regexps to handle non significant whitespaces) and in the parser (because it handles newlines specially). But when there's no reason to split cells of the same row on separate line because thre table content is more easily viewable in the editor when you do not need to do that, and there are few cells on the row, and the editable line remains short and columns almost aligned (with no need to do any kind of indentation for vertical alignement, and no excessively long lines, such table should be economic, notably if they are generated by bots: before submitting giant data table on a page, you first need to do that an a small extract, see how it is best editable, and can be optimized, then you can tune your generator/bot to do things cleanly. If the page ias actually never meant to be human editable and only generated by bots repeatedly (e.g. with a daily, weekly or monthly report), you should compact the code as much as possible without unnecessary whitespaces.
As well it is always more economic to use the wikisyntax for tables, and lists, because it uses far less resources to parse the page. MediaWiki can then generate the HTML on the fly without difficulty. What is critical is the size in caches, the number of visited (lexer) nodes, the number of expansions, the expansion depth (depth of curly braces for templates or parser functions), and you nave to know in which cases some template parameters are expanded or not (#if and #switch are smarter than you think, they implement shortcuts to avoid the conditional expansion of their unused parameters, but their expansion is not cachable, while template expansion is cached using the effective tempalte name, and its effective parameters, independantly of the intertnal complexity of the template itself; there are some adiditonal conditions such as the detection of conditions that vary over time, such as the use of currenty date time, or costly functions like PAGEINCATEGORY: whose result is not cachable and will require expansion at each invokation; template expansions may be cached for visiting multiple pages using the same parameter values for the same template).
The cachability of template/function expansion offers extrmely significant speed improvement and saves lot of resources on the server, notably this one which is hosted on a modest architecture. I've past considerable time trying to reduce the hidden costs of frequerntly used templates, they are faster now than ever, even if they handle many more cases (notably those used for i18n which are extremely complex because they need also to preserve some level of compatibility for long periods of times, often more than one year, or just to allow a transition to a better/faster system). This is not easy to do on this wiki becaue it has very few extensions (no Lua modules for example), and some of its existing extensions, developed and installed locally, are completely broken : e.g. the slippy maps. — Verdy_p (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure page versions can be hidden, I just wanted to make sure I have understood that correctly. I think we do not need to proactively hide here.
Thanks, found the section NewPP limit report. In the HTML source.
Table syntax readability is the most important, great when there is a way which also has a lower cpu cost.
Thank you very much for all your optimizations, that is really needed in this wiki. E.g. I frequently use DE:How_to_map_a which takes a feeled minute to load - likely again due to the many templates on it. Confirmed by the "Transclusion expansion time report". But the tag formatting is very useful. --aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Giants pages like "Hos to map a" or "Map Features" are a big problem (it's why TagInfo was created innstead to collect info from many pages and assemble the whole). I think both pages should be deprecated or rewritten another way to find relevant info. But it's also the reason why we've started to restructure the wiki so that individual pages can be more easily found: most of the job this requires is to resolve the zillions red links, for that we need accurate categories, and want to make sure that categories are well structured and items are precisely located with accurate terms. This then allows the internal search engine to find more accurate and more selective results, and helps users find relevant links.
As well being able to manage the translations (that are necessarily incomplete for all languages) is extremely important to avoid mixing everything : I spend lot of time categoizing languages properly and make sure they have the same structures across all languages (here again this further helps the navigation, we can find fallbacks, but are not required to navigate only in English-only pages and we have more contributors in the world to assist in documenting things. Now taginfo also helps making this cleanup.
I've managed priorities on what was the most wanted on the wiki and reported by MediaWiki itself. I study these reports and make lot of searches on the wiki and discover many pages that have been left abandoned or nearly unreferenced and I reconnect them to the whole. With all what I did, the wiki is much less a haystack it was about 2,5 years ago when I started this huge job (which is still not finished). We lack people to do this cleanup, but when I say "cleanup" I dod not mean that I delete content! No I reconnect the contents and make sure all can be found or archived, or that pages for the same topic can be optionally merged and discussed. Another thing which is largely in work is the creation of "groups" in Tag and Key description pages. Basically they are categories supported by a generic description page for several related topics: this in fine could replace the non-workable "How to map a" or "Map features" which are now unmaintainable (too many things in them, as if one wanted Wikipedia to sover everything in a single article...).
Verdy_p (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Quick find-ability is a very good aspect of DE:How to map a because you can use your browser's in-page search. Jumping between results is blazing fast (F3) and you directly see a full screen page full of context. I would not regard this huge page as non-maintainable (look at its history). However, if the page takes a minute to load it is non really that helpful anymore (+ the needed server resources...). Thanks for the cleanup!
Happy mapping (and wiki-ing). --aseerel4c26 (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
PAges that take a minute to load and several minutes to generate on the server (including when editing them to add/fix things) are very bad. Mediawiki has other tools to search content: categories, and the search bar at top of all pages. I think it is the way to go. My feeling is that "How to map a" and "Map features" will in fine be deprecated, as they are unmaintainable, so that's why I did not make lot of efforts to make them work better and load faster, I've just ktp them as they are, knowing that they fail in many cases (and are signaled as failing by MediaWiki itself, due to the limits reached). So I do not take any priority to solve these two pages (and their translations), I know they don't work and later they will be removed, or largely simplified to not cover so many tags, by becoming more selective (or by integrating some addon to generate the content). Such integration of external tools was started quite recently on TagDescription pages, where the content is actually fetched by a javascript using an external tool from TagInfo, but only in the English pages for now. But this integration causes accessibility features for all users that have Javascript disabled in their browser (they just see "loading content..." or "content not available, javascript required" when they try to look at the English documentation; instead they have to view the doc on the TagInfo site and not on the wiki itself, and they cannot edit these descriptions on the wiki with a working preview). — Verdy_p (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Issue with ElementUsage template

I noticed an issue with the ElementUsage template, which can be seen for tags with onRelation=yes, such as Key:colour. Instead of showing an icon, the text "may be used on relations" is shown. Somehow, the template tries to load an image Osm_element_relation_.svg, which does not exist due to the excessive underscore character right in front of ".svg". The template should derive the image filename Osm_element_relation.svg - no idea where this comes from... Added you as you were the last modifier of said templates. Mmd (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This was a glitch for only a couple of seconds second between two edits (made yesterday). Refresh the page it should already be OK when you post this message. Oh I see, this still affected one icon, I just fixed it: there was an extra unwanted space in the template using some triock of Mediawiki that are likely to become unsupported (or supported for compatiblity in more limited cases which require slower code, more complex parsing, and more memory used on the server).
Thanks a lot for the quick fix, the page looks good now! 19:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the disturbance I checked it again and forgot one case (this is part of a work needed to fix performance problems on the server, and large pages not rendering correctly or causing excessive delays, long response time, and unnecessary workload on the server; these workloads don't necessarily break pages only a few, but still they are a longterm problem of maintenance; here it was quite "simple" to handle, but sorting problems one by one helps solving more complex cases progressively).
This server has stronger limitations thant those used by Wikimedia. Sometimes workarounds are hard to find. We can see some hotspots in performance. Basically I want to have some heavily used templates to render in less time (I've done that to make some templates working 10 or 20 times faster: these being eliminated, we see other hotspots promoted and depending on something else. Whe nwe resolve these, we can then enhance templates to support more cases (notably internationalisation, tracking common errors, better usage of templatre expansion caches, reduction of dependancies, unification of the structure of the wiki, improved linking, better categorization, better maintenance of many forgotten pages left unmaintained that are hard to find even in their own native language because they were only used in one link in a page where the link was no longer relevant...)
There's lot to do to fix old things on the wiki and maximize its capabilities and performance and generalize the concepts/methods to avoid similar errors later (we've accumulated really a lot of undetected errors over time, with lot of duplicated efforts for the same thing due to lack of coordination across contributors that did not, and could not, know that some topics were already partly covered somewhere else). Slowly the haystack finds a structure using existing usages as much as possible (these usages have to be regularized, even if this requires some adaptation for compatibility and possible smooth migrations of older practices that were found to be less easily maintanable).
Verdy_p (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Route relation: Roles forward:stop:<number> etc. on page Relation:route

Dear Verdy p,

in the following I'll be referring to this edit: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relation%3Aroute&type=revision&diff=1585001&oldid=1584996. Could you please name an example where they are used in Public transport (esp. PTv2). The page says that these tags are being used for PT-routes which seems outdated to me. Thx, U30303020 (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You're alone and this order specified by numbers, rather than just the unstable order of members which is unmaintainable in editors (notably in iD!) and all relations where the order of members is not significant at all.
These numbers are there since the begining of the specifications in 2007 and is still needed in various cases (because of ambiguities for routes that perform local loops or pass twice on the same stop for a single main "direction" after branching).
"Unlikely" does not mean it is not used and not needed. In fact there does exist cases where this is the only way to represent the order correctly, and without having to add the same member twice with the same role! And even with PTv2 (where forward/backward is no longer needed when we separate directions using "master" relations) we still need to specify an order, including for route ways (not just stops and platforms) ! Otherwise the order is completely unpredictable (routes are actually more complex than the most frequent simple cases you're thinking about: more rare cases are also valid and your "unlikely" argument is clearly violating rules that have been validated since the begining; PTv2 does not remove these complex cases but expose even more why we need an explicit order !). OK the API can preserve the order of members wince v0.6, but editors do not preserve order or do not let users specify it (except in JOSM).
Note: initially an underscore (_) was used instead of the colon (:) before the number, the colon was decided rapidly after (there may remains some tags still using the underscore).
You cannot suppress such tags from the doc that have been there since more than 11 years, without asking why we still need them and waht we can do when we need a precise order (including explaining that iD, used by most OSM contributors, does not preserve the order of members in relations and still does not allow specifying it).
Summary: PTv2 just drops the need to distinguish "forward" and "backward". It adds new roles suffixes: "entry_only", "exit_only", it does not remove the need to specify the order which exists since the beginning and remains needed.
Almost all relations in OSM have been designed now so that the order of members is NOT significant, and when order is needed we have to use explicit tagging (or roles), and their existence is justified and are not "errors" as what you think by considering only the most frequent simple cases!
So before performing such deletion, it has to be discussed seriously, and caveats must find a way to resolve them (for now there's not been any other proposal and documentation about these solutions, including in Germany where you are just starting recently to work with OSM). — Verdy_p (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Users_in_the_Netherlands

Hi Verdy P, thanks for correcting it correctly. The category was linked incorrectly because when you clicked "Users in the Netherlands" in WikiProject Netherlands you got a category page with just one user. And yes, my corrections did not seem to do a whole lot of difference. --Mdeen (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No all templates were using the lowercase article, until you or someone else ade an error while modifying the User box to have an undesired uppercase. Look at the category in question it has been filled correctly since long by users already using this userbox. I undid that undesired change that broke everything. Ther's a lowercase everywhere for the article, in all templates.
The WikiProject page was also doing things correctly until someone misused a parameter there. You were the only user that had made a use with a capital after doing this change, nobody was affected by what you thought was an error, that had been prevented since long. That's why I undid your move as it broke for everyone else than you. — Verdy_p (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Tag:public transport=platform: your revert of my revert :-)

no, highway=platform is not a "wellknown" tag, it was not part of PTv1 and is not part of PTv2.

If highway=platform doesn't belong to PTv1 (which actually was never defined), then why is it mentioned in Proposed_features/Public_Transport? From what I understand, every public transportation–related tag from before PTv2 is a PTv1 tag. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It has been a confusion only between tags. Even the target page says it was an error and in fact most uses have started since PTv2 was defined. Before that where was only highway=bus_stop for the same purpose, tagging the platform (most ofte often a single node at the signal, or more rarely just the stop node on the way).
There's absolutely no legacy use of highway=platform in tools, but highway=bus_stop is still recognized by some of them. highway=platform has also never been part oof predefined sets in editors. And in fact those new uses occuring today are just errors when public_transport=platform was intended. — Verdy_p (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
There's a highway=platform preset in JOSM, OSM Carto renders it and there are more than 90,000 uses of this tag. Therefore, I wouldn't say that highway=platform is a tagging error. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Tanzania

Hi Verdy, I see that you have been the only one active on WikiProject Tanzania main page for quite some time. Are you aware who is actually active and who is in TZ? ? I am Kipala from swwiki and since being back to Dar es Salaam I try to make more use of OSM, also contributing somewhat. If you can spare time you could teach how to use the maps on wikipedia - we did seed articles on most of the Tanzanian communes but often are not clear where these are because often our only source is the census files of 2012 plus the postal codes list which says a bit about newly split communes.

Kipala (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been asked by other channel to start organizing these pages. This came from severla talk lists, including HOT and the existing users on the Tanazania page. I've not made a lot. I was looking fopr exiosting content to help manage them and find them, then help structure them and planning what to do and where. I've helped promoting the Tanzanian local events on this wiki, and added the relevant missing links that connect Tanzanian topics to the rest of the world. There are several external channels, notably on social networks, HOT mailing lists, and elsewhere.
There are several important local working froups (notably one in Dar es Salaam but interested to work on the whole country and alswor working in cooperation for other Central African countries and neighbouring countries in Indian Ocean, along with groups in Europe, notably in UK and Latvia).
So no I'm not alone, and I was guided. However for now we did not have any request about Wikipedia. All I did was to link the articles on this wiki for Tanzanian regions to the associated articles in Wikipedia (all languages). But I made nothing about Tanzanian towns and cities (except Dar es Salaam which is a city and region). — Verdy_p (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

equals sign

Thanks for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Rivers&diff=1602127&oldid=1602046 - I forgot about switching to explicit parameters in a template Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Listeria

Hi What is your opinion on using Listeria. I have started a discussion on wiki talk page Talk:Wiki#Use_Listeria. Please add your input -- Naveenpf (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No opinion. There are various ways to generate and format lists, but on Wikidata this only woirks because there's support for Scrubinto/Lua modules to query Wikidata. This wiki does not have support for Scribunto (and probably not the capcity on this server unless there's a major upgrade in terms of hardware and internal network infrastructure to interconnect databases with correct speed, so that these scripts can query and generate the content without extrmeme delays).
For now, all we can do eventually is to use generation of wiki pages from some external bots (but note that Bots are generally not allowed on this wiki: what these bots can do is only to generate the content that can be then copy-pasted by editing pages manually; there's no bot except for specific security-related tasks or cleanup of spammed contents with help of some detection filters).
What we can also do is to help creating these lists using custom templates with reduced parameters and some utility templates containing some centralized data sets that can be used on multiple pages.
I don't think that updates are so frequent on these lists of administrative units that this cannot be done manually in relevant wiki pages, even if we use some external editors with some common transforms (e.g. by using regexps).
And as you've seen it's possible to create correctly linked sets of pages in India: this requires some preparation for the first pages but then the other pages are easier to create and they all maintain a common structure with predictable page names, category names and corect classification and a navbar which finally eases the maintenance when something changes so that all pages are easily maintained in sync. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Performance impact due to translation templates

There are some reports that Wiki performance at large is pretty bad, see https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/213

As you probably know, each wiki page includes a wgPageParseReport, which can be used to break down response times to the level of single templates. One way of getting this information is via Page source, or a bit more comfortable via the Javascript console in your browser by entering the following after loading a Wiki page:

mw.config.get('wgPageParseReport').limitreport.timingprofile.forEach(function (e) {console.log(e)});

I have found quite a number of pages, where Languages, Languages/div, LanguageLink and Languagename templates contribute quite a bit to the overall processing time of a page.

Is this something you could look into, and analyze if there are ways to improve those templates performance wise?

Example: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Key:source

100.00% 2811.340      1 -total 
 95.59% 2687.367      1 Template:KeyDescription
 95.55% 2686.238      1 Template:Description
 86.64% 2435.630      1 Template:Languages
 86.52% 2432.510      1 Template:Languages/div
 84.38% 2372.221    132 Template:LanguageLink
 75.17% 2113.418    132 Template:Languagename
 26.11%  733.964    721 Template:Langcode
  4.87%  136.884     35 Template:LangSwitch
  3.54%   99.465     73 Template:LangPrefix

Thanks! Mmd (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I know that but the KeyDescription template is becoming a bit too long. I've searched extensively already to optimize them (and made already several optimization using the profile simply displayed in comments within the HTML code of generated pages (that contain the same statistics without having to use the API). I've already refactored them to accelerate them so they use the "template expansion cache" (built in Mediawiki) as much as possible.
  • I've already optimized "LangSwitch" as much as I could (to be faster, we would need a server extension but Scribunto/Lua is not enabled on this wiki).
  • The "Languages" bar also was optimized to remove most "costly parser functions", this was made and discussed about 2 years ago.
  • The "Langcode" template (very heavily used on almost all pages, often repeatedly) is now extremely fast (~1ms on average) and maximally benefits from the parser expansion cache. I could save some fractions of millisecond so now it is even a bit under 1 ms (it was a bit above 1ms) As it handles the default "lang", you no longer need to test is lang is specified before using it, just pass the "lang" parameter directly, and it saves one brace-embedding level hidden in the expansion cache.
  • The "Languagename" template is still very short and handles only a few exceptions still not handled by the #language parser function (it provides some compatibility aliasing needing in our existing pages or to link with Wikipedia which still has non-standard legacy codes). It could be faster when some additional languages detected here will be supported by Mediawiki's perser function natively. For now this is the most costly template and it cannot be fixed without fixing #language itself for language codes still not recognized. There should be very few (or ideally no) language codes specifically handled in the code of this template.
  • The "KeyDescription" is the most problematic given the many things it does now, but attempts to split it (by separating the items it translates) caused even more delays. Note that spacing/indentation has some costs but it is now negligeable in the current version of Mediawiki. What is more significant is the number of parsing levels and passing parameters with subtemplates or parserfunctions, even if the expansion now better uses the cache to limit the number of expansions returning the same result (this means cleanup of unnecessary parameters): when they are called repeatedly, the expansion is made only once and costs on average less than 2 ms per invokation when using the cache (this works provided the template name or parser funtion name is the same and all their parameters are identical (after discarding all non significant spaces, these are hashed and when a hash matches, the template/function expansion result from the cache is reused as is, otherwise the expansion is evaluated, and then its result kept in the cache for the rest of the page).
  • Mediawiki still does not handle "lazy expansion": if parameter calue is finally unused in the result, it still has to be evaluated at least once. And Mediawiki does not use "recursive" expansion (with a lopp for reducing trailing recursion) using a state machine. Some templates may not fit in the cache if they use some parser fucntions that are time-dependant (e.g. #time, or page version numbers, or server statistics: the cache will be flushed too early).
  • As well the template expansion for now is not stored on this wiki (it persists only in memory for the time of the page expansion). Wikipedia uses persistant storage and not just transient caches in memory. But it cannot be used on this wiki, as it has no storage defined for that (this requires installing an additional extension hook in Mediawiki to change the caching policy and setting up the storage and tune its performance, possibly with SSD frontends, or OS-level filesystem caches with more RAM).
Note also that any edit on a widely used template will force all pages using it to be parsed again (this invalidates what is in the cache of rendered pages). One way to avoid it it to make templates that won't need frequent edits (e.g. adding a translation in such template).
For now we would need to install the translation extension (which will use separate pages but will not need using "costly parser functions" to test their existence, that's why we use LangSwitch instead, which does not use any costly parser function, including for handling language fallbacks (we currently have a very limited set of fallbacks and most often we can avoid them just by adding the most requested missing translations, and that's why I've tracked the most wanted ones and reduced the numebr of needs of fallbacks for the most frequently used templates; it has also helped maintain the performance, and reduced the need to edit these templates often, once for each new translation in a new language). But there's always a tradeoff with keeping maintenance of missing translations not too complex for new translators: asking them to create a new template is too costly and often makes the code frequently out of sync and difficult and lengthy to adapt if the main logic is not centralized. It and when we'll have support for Scrubunto/Lua, this will be faster than when using the Mediawiki parser (Lua scripts can be precompiled and cached in the Lua VM, so it's reused and runs fast when new edited wiki pages need to be parsed again. For now the template expansions are still not kept in a persistant cache (unlike full wiki pages whose content parsing are persistant).
Verdy_p (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
One note: the measured times above are dependant of the current activity on the server; if there is a long "job queue" in the current Mediawiki statistics, there will be more background worker processes running to process this list, and the performance may be temporarily lower. You need to compare times when the jon queue is relatively small (under 1000 jobs) and there are not too many people connected (doing that at peak times generally around 17:00 UTC, you'll get generally larger expansion time which is typically increased by about 1 or 2 seconds). Note that peak times where many people are visiting do not necessarily impact the performance (but after processing page requests from every visitors that will get a preprocessed page most of the time, the user's session on the server is terminated but continues in the background in the same server process by processing a few jobs on the job queue: if there are many visitors, the job queue will be processed faster, using more processes, unless there are too many processes admitted (the server has a configuration which limits the total number of blakground job workers allowed to run in parallel, so not all visitors reading a page from a cache will necessarily involve the continuation of the session with a silent processing of pening jobs on the server, if this maximum is already reached; if there are too many active visitors, the priority is still given to the expansion of pages they want to see, and "foreground" expansion is counted as one worker; where foreground workers (in the user sessions which is waiting for the result) always have the priority over background workers, which may need to be stopped under peak hours, so the job queue will grow in these peek hours, and will start decreasing again where there's some time available; the maximum number of background job workers is reached during low hours, where the job queue will decrease faster; when the job queue falls below 1000 jobs, apparently the server kills many workers and just leaves only one worker running to process the rest of jobs more slowly, and the page expansion time will then be minimal).
Idealy this server should have frequent periods with 0 jobs pending in the job queue, but unfortunately this is not the case and generally the job queue frequently stalls at around 600 jobs to complete very slowly (notably jobs that reindex added/removed page members in categories, or pages whose only the sort key has been modified). This server does not seem to have many cores and just a few processes are allowed to run (we are not Wikipedia, we were told that this just runs in a Linux VM with just 32GB of memory for everything, including the OS, the Apache webserver, the PHP engine, the local database client and its cache, and all disk I/O caches via an apparently slow remote filesystem on a basic RAID array of harddisks (and no SSD frontend for this remote filesystem storing the database of Wiki pages). during some periods, the OS may also be busy while performing filesystem backups or synchronization, or because there are some admins running some maintenance tools, or installing OS updates (and many recent OS updates in Linux/PHP/SQL for mitigating Spectre/Meltdown issues have significantly impacted the performance of Mediawiki). — Verdy_p (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit

Its really odd that you said there was no discussion but that I also received more opposition. There can't really be opposition posed in conversation that never happened can there? You know full well there was a conversation, you just choose not to participate in it, except for leaving one crappy suggestion that you knew would be to hard to implement and then you dodged out of testing it like aseerel4c26 asked you to. Not to mention it sat there for three weeks, you or anyone else could have gave feed back that whole time. Know one did though, including you. That doesn't even include the conversation we had on my talk page about it, where you denied there was even an issue and harassed me for bringing it up.

There was opposition in several reverst for your edits on the same pages (removing a navigation template) by several people that you chose to ignore.
I am not alone. We asked you to prove what was your asserted problem, but never gave details. You chose to ignore and reapply what was reverted by multiple users.
There's been absolutely no prrof that tabs did not work (and all tests on common and unbcommon mobiles, aven those with modest screen sizes, demonstrated no problem at all that could be seen. If the problem was real, you should have provided details about the mobole you use, the display resolution, the web browser app you use (it's probably completely broken and not just on this page then). — Verdy_p (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, aseerel4c26 agreed with me that the page didn't work on mobile and he also agreed that it needs to be fixed. So I think that's actual more Opposition to your opinion then the other way around. Especially, since its clear from your comment on my original change about how it "works perfectly on mobile" that you didn't even check in the first place and that you just reverted me off hand out of some kind of ego trip or something. So your opinion on the subject is really utterly worthless at this point. Especially since the only reason you have given for reverting me is essentially "Mobile users don't matter. So piss off." Which to me, and anyone with half a brain, is not a valid reason. If you had of given one in the first place instead pulling this disingenuous ego trip crap, maybe I would have cared, but at this point I really don't. Plus, like I said in my change summary, it probably would of only been temporary until something better could be implemented. I'm not going to wait for a month, or indefinitely like you would probably prefer, for some none existent conversation to materialize, while the page remains broke in the mean time. I don't think the conversation would ever happen, because I don't really think anyone else cares about it except you,because having the tabs there and being able to revert people who screw with them feed your inflated sense of ego or something. Even aseerel4c26 said he/she doesn't really have time to spend on the wiki and doesn't really care that much about it either. Also, next time you decide to use lying as a way to push your agenda, don't make it so easily disprovable.

I have a great quote to with you from a popular book on web design I was just reading. I think it describes this situation and how your acting perfectly "Your website is not all about you. while some website managers want their websites to appeal to everyone, others want it to appeal to themselves and their colleagues. This typically manifests itself in inappropriate design that caters to the managing director's personal preferences and in content that is full of jargon. A website should not pander to the preferences of staff but should rather meet the needs of its users. Too many designs are rejected because the boss "doesn't like green." likewise, to much website copy contains acronyms and terms used only within the organization." I think that your attitude perfectly. Your essentially saying "I like green. So screw the user and the fact that the site is broken for them." Not to mention the use of jargon like GNSS GLONASS. Do yourself a favor and read how many of the devices in the reviews actually have that feature, because its only like 5 out of 200, and the term isn't even used that much if at all in the articles. Yet its the title of the whole thing for some reason. The only purpose it serves is to inflate your ego because you can make templates with big words in them. The

The real truth is that you just want the site to appeal only for you, given that no one was able to see the "problem" that you've constantly not wanted to describe, or allowed any other people to reproduce (and possibly fix if there's a real problem, which is probably extremely minor) Tabs are used since long on this wiki and not jsut on the page that were linked by this model that you want to drop (and replace by multiple incoherent edits on multiple pages, when their navigation was unified/centralized, and translations were coordinated as well, with little maintenance needed except adding new translations with very simple edits). — Verdy_p (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
And the "jargon" you cite is the standard terminology that these pages are explaining on purpose. Removing them will not explain anything and will not help users being aware of how this works and what are the known difficulties and problems we want to solve. Also you are inventing here pseudo-statements I did not made myself. — Verdy_p (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Note that I respect since long the usage of mobiles (and there's much work on this wiki to make it more usable with mobiles, or with other languages and script than jsut left-to-right English. There are tons of evident problems remaining since long because these were initially ignored. This wiki is now much more used than it was before, and progressively it is fixed and uses some tools to avoid past errors or detect new problems. It has also lot of tricky cases handled by NOT performing radical changes but adding some level of compatibility. I test really a lot of things in lot of contexts. I also care about the performance of the wiki by finding ways to make it more efficient (even if it's not easy to accomodate everything: changes are incremental and many are delayed until other more important blocking problems are solved). The most frequent problem this wiki has is the difficulty to search it and navigate. Then the other problems are about organizing the content and sorting it by topic and in smaller pages with enough links to navigate easily or find other relevant topics which were developed together.
And I care about preserving the history of the project, because many pages are then forgotten by their initial creator, but were used to take some old decision based on facts that would no longer be relevant (e.g. current technical limitations which will be solved months or years later). — Verdy_p (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The truly pathetic thing is that your not even the boss, because there's no bosses here. Your just a wannabee little nobody, that probably gets off on pushing people around by reverting them and throwing around petty little insults like " know one asked you to edit here." Really though, there's no reason why your opinion on how the pages should be is anymore authoritative them mine or aseerel4c26s. The fact that you implement a translation template way back in the day and than used it to create a bunch of empty pages that know one asked you make, like a British imperialist invading India, doesn't put you on a higher level then me or him, because this isn't a meritocracy. You can either bring facts and valid well thought out reason for what your doing to the table, or don't come to it at all. Keep that in mind going forward.

Talking about going forward here's how I am going to do this, even though I think I have given you more then enough time, I'll give you a week to actually participate in the discussion by presenting a valid alternative that can actually be implemented by you or more. If you don't, then I will just change back again to how I had them. I'm not going to let a page sit there for months broken for some users. Me aside Vespucci, which is a mobile editing app, is the forth most used OSM editor. It has almost a million and a half edits per year. That doesn't even count OsmAnd or other mobile app users. So They are obviously out there looking at the site in large numbers and your whole assertion that they aren't is complete crap. I'm pretty sure the pages with tabs don't work good them either. I don't care what your personal opinion on it is. Plus, if you didn't the template changed originally, you should of done proper testing on it before you implemented it. That's singularly on you. So is whatever links break by changing it. Things like that are a normal part of maintenance. Grow a backbone and deal with it.

The most important thing though is that if you decide to revert me again after I change it in a week, without doing the other things I said, it will obviously just because your an egomaniac troll. So I will report you to an admin for edit warring and harassment. I'm pretty sure the whole "know one asked you to make edits" things in your original message to me, which was essentially telling me to piss off, violates some rule of conduct. Also, I will probably be making major edits to many other pages in the future that you wont like. The same rule will apply to them, either bring facts and be willing to discuss things from a well reasoned position or just leave the pages how I make them. Otherwise, I will just redo it and eventually report you. At the end of the day, I'm just a reader that wants the wiki to be easy to read. I also do a crap tone of edits on the map and deal with a lot of people on there who keep having basic issues because they can't find information on the wiki good enough. It shouldn't be that way. Your to narrowly focused on your own agenda to realize it though. Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the level of personal attack here and your abusive language ("troll", "imperialist", "crap", "boss", "your ego", "pathetic": sic!) this can only void your position and bring the attention to admins about your behavior. Report me if you want, I made nothing wrong and in fact an admin will warn you. I'm far from abeing alone to have used these tabs in many pages, and you're the first one to say it causes problems that untyil now have not been proven at all, even if we asked you to describe it correctly.
And I don't see why what is done in an OSM editor (any one) has an impact on how people navigate on this wiki. You're speaking now about Vespucci, but I don't see where it is relevant in these pages! This wiki is not the Vespucci editor (which is developed and maintained in a very proprietary way, even if it has some source available, and it is still a very minor editor compared to iD and JOSM, which do not need a specific form of wiki pages to work correctly: these are isolated articles to be read online).
And yes these tabs were properly tested, and assessed by standard tools (available in modern browsers that can even check compatibility for old browsers and suggest adaptations).
If you use a non-browser app, then it is probably a problem of this non-standard app using a broken web parser. But once again you've not specified what yuu used to view the pages in question. As opposed to you, I have followed the existing practices, and the change you want here is not proven by fact and there were many other users using that without any problem reported. I much better respect what others have done here in these pages and many others. And removing text, changing the navigation significantlyu, removing relevant links, and forcing users to edit now multiple pages (to maintain them in sync) is not the way to do. — Verdy_p (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(Snipped)

So I will just ignore anything you say that rehashes the same none fact based crap you keep repeating Adamant1 (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I already replied correctly above. And you continue using insulting words. Sorry, I will not reply more. I snipped your additional long reponse and I've hidden it above. — Verdy_p (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(..snipped insults again..) P.S. Don't worry about responding. The talk pages of the articles where the dispute is coming from are much better places for discussions on how they should be edited. You should of just started it there when you reverted me in the first place, like asreal45 did. Unless your not open to other peoples opinions on things ;) Adamant1 (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again insulting words from you. Your abuse is noted. I won't reply your bad attitude. You are alone to use these words. — Verdy_p (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Once again you don'(t talk, you just complain without any progress and the same bad conduct, and lies !) I reverted your talk here. I've warned you several time to change your words. I don't fear any admin will instead warn you and block you because of your attitude and personal atacks, not me for this case. You don't discuss seriously there's no progress possible. — Verdy_p (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
What exactly was insulting? I really have no way of knowing or disputing it since you deleted my post.
Nothing is deleted (and if anyone wants to verify this is also visble in the history), and i already cited your words.
(..snip, long repetition, and once again abusive attitude..) 03:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Adamant1 (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Except Adamant1 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I snipped you again. Stop this non-sense harassment. Who is constantly uncivil in all its messages? You. — Verdy_p (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Verdy_p Please don't try and censor your talk page like that. @Adamant1 re "I keep saying it though because you don't seem to get it" - unfortunately keeping on saying it won't help matters. Verdy_p's actions in the past suggest that a reasoned argument isn't the best way to try and communicate - he'll perceive it as a personal attack rather than an attempt to reach a concensus. Also I'd suggest trying to keep the volume of each comment down - there is simply "too much text to read" in the comment that Verdy_p censored (something that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aseerel4c26 has mentioned on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Recording_GPS_tracks ). --SomeoneElse (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
There's evidence in the chosen words (since the begining) that he wanted to be agressive, and he did that repeatedly with agressive terms spread everywhere. So no consensus is possible. This started by another talk page where there was an attempt to negociate, but once again this other page was agressive again (jsut consider the few words I cist in bold style, that he has used, this is clearly not a way to calm the situation and negociate anything. — Verdy_p (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit war on Tag2Link template

You seem to be engaged in an edit war with Mateusz Konieczny regarding the deletion of Template:Tag2Link compatible. Can I ask why? The template is no longer used anywhere (as Mateusz had previously removed all inclusions of the template), so surely there's no reason to be worried about an impact on other pages. Is there another reason for your reverts? --Tordanik 15:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not an edit war, he made a banner at the wrong place, and was alone to suppress its use under the statement that his project was more important than another one that existed and served another goal (and was not a "duplicate attempt" as stated by him).
As a result the links for external tags are no longer grouped together as they were. And the Tag2Link project is no longer linked (and not from TagInfo itself which does not have the same purpose at all).
Tag2Link is not dead, and TagInfo does not replace it at all, even if Mateusz quite of abusively removed all references to Tag2Link. His statement "duplicate attempt" is in fact wrong: it is TagInfo that started trying to duplicate Tag2Link and started after it (but did not replace Tag2Link).
I have kept the banner but where it should be. Noone else than him decided to remove the template and all its uses. This was never discussed. — Verdy_p (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so you oppose removal of the uses of the template, too. That makes more sense – I had assumed you were ok with them as they happened some time ago already. I hope you two can discuss this and come to an agreement.
In the hope of resolving potential misunderstandings, though, I believe his argument is not that Tag2Link is replaced by Taginfo. His argument is that, to find out which projects support a given tag, it's better to use Taginfo Projects (e.g. [1]) instead of banners on the wiki. --Tordanik 17:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
But Tag2Link is not listed there ! And the template was also used to categorize the tags used for external references.
In summary, there was, and there is still not "duplicate" as stated. And the tags are left as if they were not used for the given purpose that was stated by the banner template. "Supporting" a tag does not mean it is intended to indicate an external reference. Tag2Link converts a tag value to an URL with parameter. TagInfo does NOT do that at all. The removal of the template has removed that indication (which is not just that it is supported by Tag2Link, but that this is an external reference which may as well be used in other similar services that TagInfo does not provide at all). Instead of removing the template blindly, may be it should have been modified to suppress the banner but not the rest. He did not look at what was really in that template. — Verdy_p (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Greek El:Beginners Guide 1.5 Page

So, I was looking through the beginners guides and I happen to notice that the Greek guide is in half Greek and half English. I don't have any idea what translation banner or anything there is to bring it peoples attention or whatnot because that's just not my area of expertise, but I figured since it is yours I would bring it to your attention in case there is something you could do about it.

There are lot of pages that are half-translated, you can see some banners documented in the Cleanup project, and its category that list templtes and their own category for listing pages where they are listed. You can also find them using the Translation category where these cleanup-subgategories are listed. People constribute and translate what they want and feel is more important for them. There's never any hurry to make translations, and no restriction at all on the languages to be used. — Verdy_p (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

FR:Tag:power=tower deletion cancelled

Ok. Btw, I know power=tower wasnt about Kosmos. I had to many tabs open in Chrome and I accidentially added the delete tag to it when it was suppose to be on another page. I was actually just in the middle of reverting it back myself. Thanks for doing it for me instead though!!!!!!!! ;) Adamant1 (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

May be that page needs update in French, but this page is fine for use in France (without needing the extra info added in the engmosh version) and the tag is widely used (not just in France), and has many references. It is highly discussed and interoperate with other France-specific schemes for the French power networkd and opendata sources.
Next time avoid deleting pages just because you see an old banner still in it (which was no longer relevant, we don't care at all about what Kosmos was doing or not, the French opendata is independant if this old rendering which actually was not used, and there are other recommended renderings used in France which recognizes the tag and makes a distinction with power poles, some extensions in the Engliush version are not relevant because they are not modeled at this level for the network structure and classification of poles/towers in the English version is very US-centric and contains some recommendations that are not applicable elsewhere). — Verdy_p (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
"May be that page needs update in French" Well you know French. So I guess that would be your call to make. Its odd you put tags everywhere about pages that need to be translated in a bunch of other languages, and go off on other people about translations matching, but then you don't maintain the pages in your own language. Kind of makes your whole argument about it seem like you don't really care as much about it as you act like you do. "Next time avoid deleting pages just because you see an old banner still in it." I said it was because I had to many tabs open, clicked on the wrong one, and that it was mistake. Which I was in the process of fixing. As such, I clearly stated it had nothing to do with the banner. Next time actually read what I wrote before commenting it, instead of assuming things.
"Its odd you put tags everywhere about pages that need to be translated". I never do that. I translate directly... Others may transalte when they want and what they think is necessary for their community and their projects. — Verdy_p (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Really, you never do that? I've seen more than a few pages in other languages that have the whole "This page is based on the English version and it is out is of sync" banner with the equals sign crossed out thing, some of which you have put there.
No it's not me that adds this, but the authors of the original pages in English because they've made significant changes that should be maed in other existing translations as well. This mostly concerns pages about new tags, or new softwares, or softwares that should be upgraded or that enter in end of cycle and should be replaced by others that have merged the functionality. What I do is just help maintaining them in sync and have them correctly linked, but I do not judge the effective contents or decisions made, I will just fill what is missing (notably navigation, repairing links, categorizing, unifying the maintenance and make sure that languages remain equally navigatable; also I fix preventively rendering problems in the English pages so that they can be used as copy-pasted models to create translations with less efforts for translators, including notably Bidi layouts for Yiddish/Hebrew/Arabic/Persian/Pashto/Maldivian/Urdu/Uyghur... And yes I do edits to allow pages to get reasonnably good layouts on mobiles with modest screen sizes, but I cannot do anything when there are large datatables with many columns, or too large/many images that cannot be packed and be readable as we still target screen sizes of about 1024px at least; for mobiles are about 600px-wide there's still no good support in Mediawiki's "mobile view" to restructure the page layout, and no good way to render and interact with maps, so some pages remain difficulty accessible to these mobile users: this is the case of the main page of this wiki, which should have an alternate mobile version). — Verdy_p (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Plus, your the one that constantly talks about pages not being editable in any way because the translation will be out of sync. I don't see any self determination in that. Otherwise, the banner you put up would be pointless. Its not like people can't tell when their page is out of synch in the first place or "fix it" when on their own time if actually an issue. So I'm sure they don't need to be told about it by a banner. Its pretty obvious when pages don't match already. Plus, the banner makes the pages look like they have an "issue" when its not one and its more of a administrator problem than something everyone visiting the page if they are an editor or not should see. I think a comment in the talk section would be better. Since that's where those types of things are usually discussed. Maybe the people who maintain the article don't want it in sync in the first place or there is a good reason for it not matching. By putting a banner there, your making an assumption which might be wrong about the content and how it compares to the English article, because the whole in sync or out of sync thing is completely arbitrary. Since there is no way to know what should and shouldn't be on the page since its not in your native language. So the banner is rather pointless since it assumes something that probably isn't the case in the first place and makes it seem like there is a system of translation in place that isn't. Since each page is essentially unique and has its own unique needs as to what should be included.
"Others may transalte when they want and what they think is necessary for their community and their projects." I agree completely that's how it should be. Which is why I have said this whole time that the "pages cant be changed because of the translations" argument is pointless. Because it should be on the people who maintain their own translated pages to decide when and what should be on their pages and how they should look. I have no issue with a the English page being used as a template originally to create a page in another language that doesn't exist yet, but after that, pages in other languages should be their own unique branches of the topic, if for no other reason than the fact that there are differences in how and what is mapped across cultures. Plus words in different languages have their own meaning sometimes and don't translate over. Not to mention by giving the English page ultimate and continual precedent as the base document, your making it a continual one way transaction where the English page is always greater in the hierarchy that always feeds into the other language page, but then the unique content on that page doesn't feed back to the English page ever because it is considered inferior. So it is either ignored in the translation process or is replaced by the English. At least that's the insinuation and how it seems from the pages I've seen so far in multiple languages. Maybe a much simpler, less in depth page layout for a none English page is perfectly fine in some cases though and it shouldn't be a complete copy of the English.
Plus, if your just creating a one to one translation of the English page into a bunch of other languages just to have them for topics where the people who speak those languages haven't created the page yet, your essentially creating a bunch of translation pages for a market of zero.
Non-sense! These pages are not created by me but by separate volunteers, and the market is not zero, if these translations are corerctly accessible from the rest. So I don't support your limited view that the only viable market is English only (this was the case several years ago as other translated contents were almost impossible to start and navigate, but no longer true, and even "small" languages have their place here. ("small" on this wiki is always official national languages or regional languages spoken by millions! And lot of humanitary projects now want these translations at various places, but they start doing them on topics specific to their region of action.) — Verdy_p (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
So its a new page for nothing. Otherwise, they would have created it themselves.
They have created those pages themselves, and linked them, or failed to link them, I have helped them get what they wanted to do. — Verdy_p (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of that with pages and templates for specific cities in odd countries...
"Odd countries" ??? Really you've not undersood the goals of OSM ! No it's not a project made just for UK, even if it started there ! — Verdy_p (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
that where mass produced by someone in like 2008 but then nothing else was ever added to them and know one ever used the template. So there's now thousands of pages that are pointless. Which could have been avoided if the person had of waited for someone from the actual community who would have used the template to come along first instead of just assuming there was a market for the page or template there when there wasn't. Ultimately, I have no issue with a specific page being created in another language if someone asked for it and I have no issue with there being some sort of parity between the translations, but I do take issue with it if it means someone can't edit their own languages pages to add unique content that wouldn't be relevant to the other pages or if it means a lot of useless pages are being created.
Useless pages are only those that cannot be linked to simply, or are kept orphaned and no longer found. I have solved many cases by first collecting them in categories, then sorting categories, and finally allow the collected page to link to each other as we know where to go, or can finally match the topics to related ones existing in other languages. — Verdy_p (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems like the way it is currently being done causes both those problems. Adamant1 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
"Both problems"??? No you've incorrectly analyzed the situation. And English-only OSM would be a severe degradation. OSM is needed in other areas that use other languages or scripts and need training. Yes we lack translators but translators need technical help and preparation so they don't start from zero and can do the work from any start location and where they need or want it.
This wiki has been internationalized less than 1 year after its creation (it started with German, then 6 other languages followed rapidly: FR, IT, NL, JA, RU; and we've seen requests for more languages around the world and have advanced fast: PT(PT-PT and PT-BR); ZH-HANS and ZH-HANT are made mostly in parallel; more recently we had requests for Arabic and Hebrew, once again by people starting to create content in these languages but asking for help to organize it; we got request from India with a dozen of languages at least; we got request for Indonesia and Philippines with hundreds of millions people to serve; we had requests from Africa).
Not all is finished and we have tracking logs showing that efforts are still coming in but are blocked by technical barriers we have to remove. — Verdy_p (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
"I do not judge the effective contents or decisions made, I will just fill what is missing" Except harping on me about how the content I add to a page is screwing things up is doing exactly that, judging the content of the page and the decisions I'm making about it. I'm just a guy from a small town in middle America that edits the map and wiki in his spare time. I might happen to be a native English speaker, but that wasn't my choice and I didn't ask for my language to be used as the metric by which everything else is judged by. Therefore, I should have as much right to edit an English page how I want it as some guy in a random town in the Philippians has a right to edit pages in Tagalog without you or I coming along and chastising him for it or reversing his edits. English is just another language. Its not even the most used language in the world, nor is it the best one to describe things in every situation. Not to mention, its not your main language either. So your essentially telling me how a page in English should be written and what rules of grammar should be followed on them, for a language your not 100% proficient at or even use mainly. As evidenced by your assertion that my calling boss was an insult when its a neutral slang term used here all the time. People always say things like "ok boss" in America. Its pretty meaningless. Like how women in Britain call people love all the time. It doesn't mean they actually love them. Its meaningless slang. You have to be competent in the language or at least know its subtleties to know that though. And even if your not the one that put the banner there, which you did in some cases, your the one enforcing it by using it as a reason to revert me. If your not the one that put the banners up in the first place though and your only fixing dead links etc, all the more evidence that you should leave it up to them to take issue with edits that put things out of sync and respect it if they never come along to. Since it was their thing to start with.
"These pages are not created by me but by separate volunteers, and the market is not zero" How do you know what the market is if your not the one that created the page in the first place? Just by necessity, some of those pages would have been created for no purpose at all. I know a lot of them where to because of their edit histories and the fact that a lot of them only have like 4 edits or less over many years. Plus most of the edits after they are created come from you and usually minor things like fixing a spelling error or adding a random "Div." In a lot of cases all the edits come from English speakers. If the market isn't zero on those pages, where are the native language speakers making the edits? Because they don't seem to exist. To me, nine years worth of no edits on a page except for it being created and zero instances of the template the pages references in that amount of time is a pretty good indicator that it has a zero market. Zero uses = zero market, its pretty basic math. Yes, some of the major pages are not that way, but your the one that generalized to the whole thing instead of those individual pages in the first place and made it about the translation system as a whole and not the merits of a single page or its content.
"Odd countries" ??? Really you've not understood the goals of OSM ! No it's not a project made just for UK, even if it started there" Obviously OSM wasn't made just for the UK and I never said that was its goal. The word "odd" is relation to the number of users on this wiki and who map from that particular country. Not the goal of OSM. If there is a little nation in Africa that has zero people from it using OSM and it also has a unique language, to me its odd. That's not an insult to that country or anything. Maybe "outlier" would be a better word. Which ever word you prefer, it still doesn't negate the fact that the pages could be created when the users appear, by them. Not that I have an issue with pages being created for a market that doesn't exist yet, but I do take issue with those pages then being used as an impetuous to revert someone's changes on the "default" page and I do take issue with a couple of hundred random pages being created in that language that are just exact copies of the English pages that will never be viewed or could have been created later when they would be. Otherwise, its a lot of extra unnecessary up keep. Which you should know. Since you fix broken links. Look at the over two hundred user pages on the Kosmos cleanup thing where it is an exact copy of its rules main page and the only edit the users has since 2008. Hundreds of single use copy and paste pages that were never used that now have to be deleted because the software is gone is a problem and it wouldn't exist if people hadn't of created useless translations in the first place and waited for the person who actually spoke the language to do it instead. There's nothing none sensical about that.
"Both problems"??? No you've incorrectly analyzed the situation. And English-only OSM would be a severe degradation." No, you've incorrectly analyzed my critique of the situation. I never said OSM should be an English only project. I said there should be some basic standards in place for when pages in other languages are created so the wiki isn't filled with junk that we than have to maintain just for the sake of staying busy when there are more important tasks to do. I've also said that the main determinant of that should be letting someone who speaks the language create the page themselves for there use if need be and let them decide how their page should be. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Obviously that doesn't exclude pages being created for a place that has no market yet, but it should still be done in moderation and no translation should get in the way of pages in other languages being changed how people who speak those languages think they should be. Once again, that seems pretty reasonable. Your the one that keeps making the argument that pages can't be changed because of translations. Either its a not real problem or if it, something should be done differently because its ridiculous to expect me not to edit English pages or improve them for people in my country simply because I unfortunate enough to be born into a place that speaks this language and its arbitrary default that other pages are judged by. That's not fair to me or anyone else who speaks English that want to improve the wiki. After the initial translation is created, we should be free to edit the page how we want and the people who maintain translations should be free to copy from our changes or not if they feel like. Your the one that has said several times we can't do that though and have used it as a reason to revert me. If its not really an issue though and we all have the right to edit pages how we want like you say, stop using it as one to reverse me then. Also, if that's the case stop reversing me based grammatical rules that apply to English which you might not be knowledgeable about since your from France and English isn't your main language. Ultimately, my here grip isn't about the translation system anyway, its the way you have used it as a reason to revert me when it shouldn't be one for the reasons I have clearly stated. If it was a good reason though, id no have problem with it being one. It just isn't.
As far as the mobile viewing thing goes, I don't want to rehash that again. Since we have been back and forth on it multiple times and are clearly not going to see eye to eye about it. Whatever the case is with the lack of mobile support on Wikimedia's side though, it doesn't mean we can't do things on our side to remedy it if possible or just say "Oh well, its all Wikimedia's thing" and throw our hands up in defeat instead. You work with what you have and there is a variance of page layouts we have available to us that work better or worse on mobile that can be implemented. So there's no reason to just not do nothing because we don't have the perfect solution. Especially since we never will because its on Wikimedia's side and mobile is becoming more and more prominent. I don't see why that should be controversial. It seems like a pretty basic tenet of web design to me. If you think mobile users should be tossed to the side because we don't have the ultimate solution to make pages work for them though, your allowed to. We just have different opinions on it and that's fine. I'm not the one pushing my opinion of how things should be on you like your trying to do to me with the reversions and such. In fact, last time I checked I let the whole thing with the tabs go and let you have your way. So I don't even know why your still bringing it up. Adamant1 (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Useless pages

"Useless pages are only those that cannot be linked to simply, or are kept orphaned and no longer found." Definition of useless from Wikipedia "not fulfilling or not expected to achieve the intended purpose or desired outcome."

From Special Pages

Pages with the fewest revisions = Over 10,000 with a single revision. A lot of them are translation pages that were created by you. That doesn't even include the probably thousands of pages with two revisions, where it wasn't touched for years except for you to do a superficial edit on it. Last time I checked the point in this wiki is to have pages people view and use, not create links or fix orphaned pages.

"I have solved many cases by first collecting them in categories" There's currently 4286 Unused categories. A lot of which are translation pages that you created and go back years. So it seems like you've been doing the exact opposite by creating categories that nothing ever went into. That doesn't even include categories that have only one or two pages in them either. I'm sure there are thousands of those also.

All those categories are used and r... Beware of the counters because they are out of sync ! Or they are redirecting to the translated category name (and the redirect is linked). Really you have no idea how to lookup things correctly, and you are posting deletion requests without using the basic tools that the wiki offers.
And the fact that a page is not modified since its creation does not mean it is not used, it's just that this does not need any change. You should really look at the documentation about how this wiki really works: this is not just a collection of random articles, it is organized. — Verdy_p (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I never said it was. I said it was indicative of how many views it gets or not. I'm talking about audience scope. This has been a conversation about editing from start. As much as I don't know the viewer numbers of a page though, neither do you. So the argument could just as well be turned around against you. I have said though that pages should be created and maintained by their intended audience, off which they aren't in most cases and edit history shows that. Viewership of an article can at least be inferred by the edits in the fact that people who visit a page will also be inclined to edit it. Although its not a one to one ratio, but I never claimed it was. More popular pages to do naturally have more editors though. And either way, the templates are still not being used, of which there are a few thousands and categories are meant to be used also. That's the point in them. Last time I checked, the categories are created in order to contain pages having to do with them. Not to be created for pages that don't exist yet and then sit there empty for 10 years. Like I said, there should be a standard involved there, like a certain number of articles for a category should exist before a category can be created for them. Otherwise, every single page on this website could have a category created for it, which is completely pointless and does nothing except take up space. Its like staking your garage up to the roof with filing Cabinets when there are no files to put in the cabinets and never will be. I never said it was a random collection of articles either or that it that shouldn't be organized. I've said repeatedly I have an issue with specific things and the way you have treated me in relation to them. More so the way you have treated me in relation to them anything. I take an issue with the translation system is implemented if it gives you the excuse to badger me for my edits because of it. That's less to with the translation system than your attitude though. Its just that you continue to avoid addressing specifics or your attitude by deflecting to the system and continuing on about it when I never said it was my grip in the first place and its only point of discussion because you made about it in the first place. I'm getting pretty sick of defending myself endlessly on talking points I never used and on issues I didn't bring up in the first place. As far as your insult about how I don't know how to look up things correctly, I'm just going to ignore it like I have other other insult you have thrown at me instead of being petty on dwelling on it like you do for things. And as far as the deletion requests go, its my prerogative to post a deletion request for whatever I feel like and its up to the mods to follow through on it or not. If you have an issue with it, take it up in the articles talk page like the rules say or just stay out of it. I could really care less either way. You don't know what tools I'm using or not though to determine what is worth deleting or not and its just another of your pointless, baseless judgments of my behavior and intentions that you know jack squat about just like the other ones you have made, because saying things like that instead of sticking to the facts is the only thing you have at this point. So I'll just repeat what I said before, we obviously have differences of opinions on how things in the Wiki should be, you don't know crap about me, my motivations, or what tools I do or don't use, and I'm not here to be endlessly badgered by you about every edit I make. It's pretty time wasting, pointless, and I'm not doing it to. People are allowed to have differences of opinions. It happens. It doesn't warrant the crap you have endlessly spewed at me over it though. I leave you to do what you want and I don't screw with your edits of the wiki or your vision of how it should be, it would be cool if you did the same in return. If nothing else, it would at least show your willing to do that whole compromise thing you swear up and down you do but there is no evidence of. Also, its clear that if anything you don't get the point in this Wiki. Last time I checked, its here to serve the mappers and help guide them on the best mapping practices. Its not here to serve the ego's of the editors or to give them a platform to harass people all day because they have nothing better to do. Also, things like if a page looks "fine" or not come last and don't matter for crap compared to if the page helps people map better. Its not a showcase for what you think makes a good wiki. Its an information source. If an edit helps explain something better for a mapper by providing more detail and making something clearer, that's the important thing. Mappers don't serve the wiki or the editors of it, and I don't serve you as a mapper. If anything you and this wiki are here for my benefit, not the other way around Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Further, there are currently 1573 unused templates. Which once again most of where created by you and are many years old. That are not being used at all.

Note at all. Most of the unused templates were not created by me, but some old templates were unified and redirected. Once again your statistics are simply wrong you need better hints. — Verdy_p (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Non-sense! These pages are not created by me but by separate volunteers" Anyone can click on those 16,000 thousands pages and see that you either created or keeped most of them going when they serve zero purpose. Its also pretty easy to look through your edit history and see your still doing it. There's no group of people or a bunch of pages, unless you create more junk to do it, that are going to magically appear after the 10 years since they were created and fill those categories or use those templates. Those are all pages that are going to have to be maintained or deleted by other people on here.

"Non-sense" again! the page views are not related at all to the number of edits. Most pages on this wiki are not edited after an initial period and stay unchanged for long, but are still read as is. Edits are needed only when there are corrections to do. You mix pears and apples. — Verdy_p (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Its pretty ironic that you have harped on me from the beginning of all this about how my edits, like adding GPS to a title, didn't serve a purpose and pointless. While you have been doing essentially the same thing except on a much larger and worse level than me for years. It seems massive projection to me and its exactly why I said your smarmy attitude is condescending. You've done nothing but treated me from the start like everything I do is trash and like I don't know what I am talking about, while at the same time a lot of the stuff your doing is clearly trash, you don't know what a useful page is, and you endlessly make statements that are easily to proved as false or that you don't know anything about, like the fact that you didn't create the pages or that I'm ignorant to the purpose of a Wiki. If that's not the definition of condescension I don't know what is. Its also why I keep saying to support what you say with facts, because that's what I do and otherwise it makes it to easy for me to make what you say look completely ridiculous. The pathetic thing here is that none of this would of even been an issue and there would of been no reason for me to even call you out on all this crap if you hadn't of screwed with me needlessly over what were pretty mundane edits in the first place. I think I've shown pretty good since than with actual facts that every reason you have gave for it all are trash.

Maybe remember this whole thing, how much of an utter waste of time its been, and the 16000 useless pages you have created the next time you get the urge to revert someone or come at things with a better than them judgmental attitude. Also, maybe next time use facts to back up what you say and do. Especially with new editors. Otherwise, you might just get shown as a massive fraud and waste everyone's time again like you did here. I don't think there's anything else I need to say on the topic past that. Adamant1 (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

What is trash is jsut editing or deleting things that does not interest you. Leave that to others. No one is interested in reading everything. Each one has his own topics of interests, most pages are very focused, and its fine as is. Remember that this wiki wants to keep the history and much later we'll rediscover things that may allow mixning emerging concepts and find contacts with the initial authors oare initial areas where concepts were used. Very frequently we look on this wiki for old things that have been forgotten but are still in use (remember that geography is ful of exceptions and there's no universal rule, and it's hard to colelct all the cases, we need this memory so that later we can refine the concepts and not forget these exceptions because of false immediate assumptions made on most frequet cases known in another place where you are interested). Most pages also have a single author, then they are translated later when someone else finds an interest for similar cases. These pages are also discussed in various places (not just this wiki, notably in mailing links and forums, or in support areas for various editors). Even if something is no longer recommended, we have to keep this trace and document what is the new prefered way of doing things, and how to adapt/migrate the existing items or how external softwares should reconciliate their data. As well it allows disamibuating later some terms which were found to be problematic and describing different situations. So these pages will slowly evolve bby just adding a few links or sentences. As well they'll keep their past discussions. And the audience of some page can easily change radically over time.
Even pages created for specific events that are termianted are useful to allow recreating new pages for similar projects with less efforts and with less errors/assumptions in mapping new things somewhere else. Many people use the search tools on this wiki to try understanding a situation and see if there are similar concepts to what they seek. Beside the small presets in editors, there are many more complex items to document, more methodologies, more events occuring with the same or similar problems to solve. Some page will be renamed or just some parts may be copied to other pages, or moved to a more general page: the content structure is constantly evolving gradually over a very long period (including migrations which take years to complete). and it is especially for the least used concepts that keeping this memory is useful, as this is for things you won't find in the most common presets. Finally not lall pages are translated from English, frequently the original comes from another language used in another region, and then it is partly taken back to English. But it's hard to generalize cases for every placve and language. — Verdy_p (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
"What is trash is jsut editing or deleting things that does not interest you." First, I only deleted things that where specifically mentioned in the cleanup project as worth deleting. You got a problem with that, take it up with whoever put the request for the stuff to be deleted in the first place. Its not on me what other people want done. Second, you don't know what interests me or not. Its just another one of your attempts to read into me behavior, which you know nothing about because you have nothing else. Everything I have done on here is because I have an interest in it. I don't just waste my time on menial crap for the sake of my ego. I'll leave that up to the other editors. Like I said above, I'm really sick of defending myself from your pointless crap logic attacks on my character every time I do an edit. I'm also tired of you using me and my edits as a way to go off on paranoid tirades about how people are out to undermine the wiki. Save it for someone who gives a crap because I don't and just keep it to yourself from now on. If you want to debate the pros and cons of a particular edit fine, but every attempted I've made to do that you just deflect to this paranoid "you don't know crap and you just screw everything up" nonsense that you have zero clue about. Just save it, and leave my edits alone unless you have a valid reason. Using your judgements of my behavior as an excuse to revert me is not a valid reason. So stop doing it. Its pretty simple. You go on and on about all this this policy, history, what editors do etc etc. Your just doing it to sound more knowledgeable and authoritative but it doesn't add anything to the discussion or accomplish that. It just makes you look pompous and self centered. Especially since I've said multiple times I either already know about the things you continue ranting about because you have said them multiple times already, I knew it already, or I just don't give a crap because there's no rule or guideline about any of it and your essentially talking out of the side of your mouth about it. So save it. Either talk about the merits of a particular edit that you have an issue or just don't waste my time. I already know all this general nonsense like how people use the search etc etc. Obviously I'm not a moron and I don't need to be talked down like I'm one. Jesus Christ. Is that really all you have? Once again, either be willing to discuss the specifics of an edit or don't revert me, because there's no compromise that can be had from you pontificating in message after message about things that are not related to any particular edit at all, because its completely void of any real substance and its just nonsense spin. Plus its all your opinion and based your biased pompous ideas. Editors aren't a homogeneous group and there isn't one underlining thing running this wiki. Also, if a page is fine or not is completely subjective. Not to mention, your the last person that would represent the editors or this wiki if that wasn't the case. Every situation and article is different. I don't know why its so hard for you to get those things. stop attacking me, talk about specifics, or don't waste my time anymore I really think you know your completely full of crap and you continue to meander on about this and talk absolute nonsense because your just so low of a person and into your own narrative about how great you are that you rather continue to beat a multiple times dead horse than just compromise on edits like your suppose to or admit your wrong. Have fun with that, but just shove off and leave me alone already. Go ramble to a wall about policy or something because I care zero about any of the designious crap coming out of your mouth and I haven't cared about it from the beginning. The pathetic thing is that I asked you multiple times to explain why you reverted me in order to find a compromise, like we are suppose to. Instead of meeting me half way though and actually coming up with a good solution you just did this blow hard holier than thou judgmental crap instead. We could of found a middle ground and not wasted this time arguing, but you just wanted to be condescending and right instead. Even if it meant making an enemy. So be it. I'm not going to waste my time anymore trying to be civil with you or trying to compromise anymore. If you have an issue with an edit I do from now on, to bad. Just be an adult and suck it up. There's other editors out there that can revert me and the world doesn't revolve around you or your opinion. If you have a problem, keep it to yourself. If you revert me, I'll just redo the edit and if you don't respect my edits, I'll just get a moderator involved again because you'll be the one edit warring. Since none of your reverts have been valid since the start of this. I"m not messaging you again either and don't message me. I'm not wasting my time on you anymore. I've asked you multiple times to leave me alone and you should just respect it and shove off already. Adamant1 (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
STOP ATTACKING ME DIRECTLY. I've never attacked you, you are alone to insist to use such constanntly abusive personal attacks, directly here: remember this is MY talk page, everything you post here will notify me directly and will perturbate everything else. STOP THAT, THIS IS AN IMPERATIVE ORDER!!! I no longer support your recurring personal harassment every day or several times a day, with witrh continued insults (yes these are insults: your text is full of them with terms intended to irritate (like "crap", "dead horse", "ramble"... quoted from your own text just above, but I may cite here such abuse in EVERY post you make).
  • I have left you alone, each time you continued to post your insults. You've never been able to moderate yourself, so there's absolutely no way to discuss with you and I will never consider any possible argument you could post, as you reject every response and continue harassing and insulting. you are wasting your time, you are wastring my time here, you are wasting the time of any other people (and visibly your history shows that you insult and harass various other people on this wiki or elsewhere).
  • I will signal also the massive deletion of contents in talk pages of other users (and abusive change of what other people said). This impersonation you use is really abusive. You're really a danger on this wiki and you want to erase the history ! I'll ask an admin to block you for a while. Your massive deletions are unwanted, what you do is clearly vandalism', you don't create or maintain anything, or help anyone you just hurt all others.
Verdy_p (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
If you have an issue with a deletion request, take it up in the talk page like the rules require. Anyone can request a page be deleted, its not vandalism. P.S. Your excuses for edit warring are as hollow as everything else you have said. Feel free to keep it up because just more foder for when I message SomeoneElse and its not like I can't just undue it. Like I said before, its hard to contribute anything to a wiki when you keep undimming me. Sounds like your creating the condition for the rationalization of your behavior to me. Also keep up deleting my comments after SomeoneElse told you not to anymore. Its kind of ironic to do after you harped on me about not editing user pages.
There's a huge difference between issuing a deletion request, and doing it massively like you do absuvely! A deletion request is just a banner with a talk page, it NEVER means blanking. The pages in question have an history to keep.
The pages in question were already resolved as being kept as historic and "soft-pointing" to a new direction fo successor projects. These historic links must be kept to inform people about what to do. the proper way to do is to clearly point users to new instructions associated to the old ones.
And we're not on Wikipedia like you said, an d even in Wikipedia the same rule applies: a deletion request is not a blanking. Read the doc correctly! Your mass deletion are unwanted when all that is needed is to correctly mark what is less relevant now, and what should be used now. This is the proper way to do. Deleting the history does not help anyone, it just hurts all visitors, and all past contributors for which you cancel their work which was and remains valuable (just like we honor the value of old data in OSM, we have to keep the history, this is even a requirement of the licences!). — Verdy_p (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
"Spammed harassement again (also speaking about Wikipedia: this is NOT Wikipedia, but even Wikipedia does not tolerate these vandalism methods))" Yeah I figured you would use that tactic. Asking you what you consider an expceptble edit is since you have reverted everything I have done is not spam or harassment. Nore is asking you what your think a good compromise would be. Also, your the one that used Wikipedia as an example in the first place multiple times. Including to cite when a delete should not be used. So its ok to use as a source when it fits you I guess, but not to show how your wrong. Ok. Also, "Wikipedia does not tolerate these vandalism methods" Its pretty hilarious how you say this isn't Wikipedia and then in the same sentence quote what they don't tolerate. Either they are valid or not. I'm not playing this game where they are valid when it suites but in other case. Just like I'm not playing the game where you can treat me however you want while I have to be on 100% good behavior. Thanks though. Finally, I told you repeatedly it wasn't vandalism and I gave you multiple examples of why. Ignoring my examples and repeating something over and over doesn't magically make it true.
So like I have said before, what's an acceptable edit and what's a good compromise on the page? Who decides what qualifies as having historical value vs being deletable and by what metric? just answer the questions so we can deal with the page already in a way that satisfies both of us and get on with our lives. So this wont happen again. I'm going to keep editing and if you won't give me a basic idea of what metrics you use to decide these things and what's revertible beyond the fact that Its revertible and vandalism simply because you don't like it, things aren't going to be very productive going forward. I have every to know what your basing things on beyond simply because you say. So I can accommodate you in the future if there is a way to and if there is a way to avoid issues. Because I'm not going to just stop editing things. So just answer the questions so I can get back to it already.
You are only the one to "play a game". This wiki is not a game to play with, it documents *both* past and current practices. And deleting past practices is bad because there's not to learn from them to improve when we now want to do or we plan to do. As well, deletring everything about Yahoo, or deleting accurate translations is really unfair for the work that was done (and also unfair for the licencing terms and the contributions that were made with it in lot of places, and that is largely remaining everywhere on the map! We have to keep that info, even if the Yahoo service is now closed: the pages in question were **already** containing that info. But changing the past does not help making nex things better, it just obscures more what has been done and it removes the loved value of the past work that allowed OSM to grow to its current state.
So yes, blanking pages that are accurate, and correctly stating that a service is no longer online, but were documenting correctly what was done, is really bad. We never need to remove these, we just need to inform people that there's a replacement somewhere else and correctly indicate what is old and what is a *possible* (but not unique) replacement for new practices.
So stop deleting things like you do. This has never been 'asked' in the cleanup project, but what was asked was to review pages referencing old practices to correctly state what can be done now. Removing items that are correctly indicated as "old" (including your deletions of items in the Cleanup page that list actions that are still ongoing because these cleanup are not terminated and will in fact be going on for many years (given that the associated data in OSM database will remain spread everywhere as long as there's no need to change it) is really bad.
And No: the "delete request" MUST NOT be used by deleting the existing content. Reread the doc. It is just a request banner to perform some cleanup, i.e. verify that contents are not stating this is still current practice, but keeping the info that it was used (and what we suggest to replace it) is the common practice everywhere. This is especially useful on this wiki because there are lot of external sites referencing it (and we must make sure they won't point to missing pages, just want to make sure they'll point to the info where the content was available, and with a new notice stating the changed status and pointing to other places). We also need it to refer to the discussions where a collective decision was made to deprecate something.
Frequently in OSM, a project is suspected because of lack of time or resource from the initial contributors, until another one takes the lead on it to resurrect it or reuse/reintegrate it in a new project (remember that most of our projects are opensourced). Put putting a wall to dissimulate our collective past, as if that work had never existed, is bad. It just complicates later analysis of what has been done, it creates difficulties to interpret what was made, it removes communication links with their contributors (which may be working ons something else but may still be contacted and interested in giving more details to help migrate the remaining things). In summary your edits just splits the community and isolate them, you remove their ability to communicate, and you treat them badly as if they were bad contributors (what they did was fine in their time). OSM is an incremantal project which constantly builds on top of what has been been done before, and we absolutely must keep that history and respect the work done before, with minimum alteration (do dont alter what does not need to).
And I've no contraduction: you used the Wikipedia as an argument. I replied to your citation: first we are not Wikipedia, but we share some common practices (but within some limits beacuse this wiki is much smaller and has much more technical limitations, meaning that it's more dificult to maintain and search info inside it).
So stop blanking pages that have been accurately marked and kept as archives: this is absolutely not what the cleanup project asks you to do ! Consider that this wiki has been made by many respectable users before you, and that we value their work, even if it's "apparently" terminated (in fact it is not).
And stop considering that old dates of last modification means that the page is not used. This is completely false! I've resurrected various pages you blanked without knowledge of the fact that they are effectively used, and even essential for the navigation or to allow other sites to continue referencing this wiki. Also stop blanking user pages without asking them. Modifying other's page is OK as long as it is a minor change that allows these pages continuing working after a possible change that would break them, or because there's some cleanup to do in tracking categories for maintenance when they are overpopulated (e.g. we may need to subcategorize the problems to allow more efficient and more scoped searches or for better planning of worker to do).
There's never any emergency to do this cleanup, but your abusive undiscussed speedy deletions is really vandalism that needs express revert.
Also I've deleted all your spammed harassment above when you used abusive terms, with insults everywhere. And because you used these insults to harass me multiple time each day, yes this was the definition of spam. You have harrassed and spammed me with unwanted content too much (and in terms that NO ONE would ever accept). You coudl use any arguments it was voided by your method and untolrable speech. You've abused mutliple policies (promoted since the begining of the Internet, then on collborativbe projects, then on Wikipedia or social networks, then enforced by authorities or your ISP, and then implied or explicitly stated in this wiki, and its various community areas where this was discussed. Your language was the cause, and I had the ful lright of deleting your personal and direct harassment on my talk page here (otherwise any one can post here, I don't hide that, but your language was a severe pollution that any one would not like to read). Your attitude was the cause. I have never insulted you like you have done constantly and since the begining. You have refused to stop these insults and insisted to spem me again and again. And NO! You did not make any clear question. I supplied arguments without insulting you, but you reject them as if they were not part of your alleged questions.
In fact you've never been clear. You have not read and followed anything about what was made on this wiki or elsewhere.
Ignorance is not a valid excuse for your spammed insults and personal harassment. And you've lied repeatedly in some of your comments (stating that they were unexpected mistakes even when you repeated the same action again and again with insistance). So yes I've reverted your abusive deletions of valid contents created by others and that were correctly tagged as historic and never needed any massive removal, only some minor changes only to state that content as being historic if this was not already the case). — Verdy_p (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit wars

Please don't engage in edit wars with other users. The recent edits to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=RU:Yahoo!_Aerial_Imagery&action=history are a waste of everyone's time. If you think that an edit is problematic please explain calmly and politely why you think that this is the case. Don't, as you did with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=RU:Yahoo!_Aerial_Imagery&oldid=1617809 just revert it and shout "REPEATED MASSIVE VANDALISM". The next 21 edits to and fro add no value. If you have a problem with the edits that someone is repeatedly making in the wiki please approach a wiki admin and explain the problem; don't react in the way that you have done here.

This is far from the first time that there have been complaints about the way you interact with other OSM users (see most of the rest of this talk page, and the many archived versions of it). Perhaps it would be helpful to take a short break? It's summer in the northern hemisphere and I'm sure that the weather where you are is excellent right now. In the great scheme of things it really doesn't matter which of the two recent versions of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=RU:Yahoo!_Aerial_Imagery&action=history are in place (actually I'd suggest that they're both wrong, for different reasons). Please do think before replying and continuing to act in the manner that you have been doing; otherwise your break from editing the wiki may not be voluntary. --SomeoneElse (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Look at the war and agressive talk he made on this page since always in every message he posted. This was unreadable, there was no way at all to discuss with him. I never insulted him but he insulted me each time in every post, and then continued in his edit comments or by naming me with insulting words in pages that he blanked with an inaccurate replacement banner...
He made tons of edits like this, blanking pages that were kept as archives and properly tagged as such. He compeltely ignored all the pazst contributors and absolutley don't care about any other language than his own language. He has in fact deleted lot of valuable things made by other users, with other false assumptions (like the fact that a page not modified since long is not viewed or not needed at all, even if they have no need to be changed)...
Really I consider him as a vandal when he fights against everything various people have made in the past, and that are still valid, or that were rpoperly tagged as historic and still valuable because we need to keep an history of past actions to explain what to do in the future.
The most problematic with him was the tone and absuive vocabulary spread everywhere. He really shouted since the begining.
Note: I am not edit warring when I revert his deletions, I restore what others have made, and he never tried to contact them. His deletions were massive and radical.
And look at all the reverts I made on THIS page (history): I have deleted most of his abusive posts which really were constant harassment several times each day and sometimes every few minutes. — Verdy_p (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Re "He made tons of edits like this" please give examples. There's a lot of old cruft in the wiki that really should be deleted because it is outdated - having things "tagged as historic" is no help to new mappers.
When you revert an edit to a page repeatedly you ARE edit warring. I do agree that the edit war on the RU imagery page has fault and unhelpful comments on both sides, but the way that you treat other wiki editors is partly a cause of the way that they treat you. Please ask yourself again - why is it only YOU that has 6 archived sections of complaints on their talk page whereas other wiki editors do not? What are you doing differently? --SomeoneElse (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Icon templates have extra dot

I noticed that way etc. have an extra dot after them since today. It seems that this has something to do with your edits to Template:Icon, but since I don't really know what you were looking for I just shortly tested this edit that somewhat fixed it pointing out where the dot is coming from: [2]. Can you check the edits you made and fix the syntax to work again properly? --ZeiP (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry this placement is fixed; I unified the translations of this template. — Verdy_p (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks! --ZeiP (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Station concourse

Hi verdy p, I notice that you recently edited the Stations page. Encouraging people to give things descriptive name surely goes against Names#Name_is_the_name_only. See Talk:Railway_stations#Station_concourse. :) --Lakedistrict (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This was not my addition, I just made this in italic and the term "name" (suggesting its actual replacement). May be I could have dropped the name value to display just "*". — Verdy_p (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)