User talk:Verdy p/Archive 2017 Jul-Dec

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

About Wikiproject Brazil

Please, let discuss the template at Talk:WikiProject_Brazil. --vgeorge (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I replied there. So there was nothing wrong in what I (and others) did before you deleted a lot of useful info that just contained some partial translation (a poor decision when all was needed was to improve the few missing translations). As well you should have read the doc. Blind deletions do not help anyone. — Verdy_p (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


Why did you revert all my changes in Pt:Pará? Besides the cosmetic changes (that you apparently had already accepted in the WikiProject Brazil), there was some text content in my editions that you also deleted.

Why don't you discuss first or contact the editors before deleting changes that you do not agree with? You don't seem to be a stakeholder in the mapping project to this location; why don't you let the local community decide how they want their project page, especially in their own language? –Virgilinojuca (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not voluntary, I did not want to "revert" these changes, but there was no edit conflict at all when I edited it. Probably a server-side cache problem when editing which sent me the wrong version content. This was not event visible in the "view diffs" before saving. I'll restore these. This wiki has some sever problems with its caches since MediaWiki 1.28 causing uinexpected artefacts and many internal bugs (look above, but the server logs are also capturing lot of fatal errors when parsing pages, and unhandled exceptions caused by its non-working defered tasks and checks). — Verdy_p (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
This is corrected (I've checked the diffs). Sorry for this. — Verdy_p (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Featured Images

You fixed a typo in the Italian text with this edit of the template however the page still shows the wrong text. Any idea how we can refresh it? Dforsi (talk)

The template you cite (Template:Featured_image_h3 used for the 3rd quarter) is not the one use for that is used for April-June (2nd quarter).
A fix is then needed for the similar template used for the 2nd quarter (same name, only the last digit for that quarter number is to be changed to Template:Featured_image_h2)
I passed time last month trying to fix more cirtical bugs affecting the current version of MediaWiki that has issues in its template cache and that was causing the calendar of events not working and "exploding" in its parser statistics. I found tricks to avoid such explosion, basically by using some shortcuts with less templates, and splitting one template in two parts: one for the header, another for the details for each week (so that they can show the translated descriptions). This was not easy to do because MediaWiki still has a problem tracking backward links such as the list of templates used in pages. And that bug is still not fixed, so I had to navigate through many pages and templates to see what was really recorded and looking at internal parser statistics to trace the resource usages for each one. I found the solution and fixed finally all the languages and the calendar is now working. Anyway I just resued the existing translations even if I fixed a few ones, I may have fogotten one Italian version. — Verdy_p (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Dforsi (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
You can translate a couple of sentences in the top box (the messages are swon in grey with a "translate" icon you can click to edit the template to add the missing translation. — Verdy_p (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing proposal pages

The page proposed features/Remove suffixed name-tags from wiki is a discussion page with a record of people commenting on how much they like a proposal to change documentation. Those comments were made about what Hakuch wrote, not about what you wrote. Please stop misrepresenting other people lile that. --Andrew (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this, could you please read the proposal pages carefully, especially the part about discussing them on discussion pages? --Zverik (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

But you've publicized a tool that instructs people to change tagging practies that your tool declares as "errors" when they are not. You are attempting to rpopose something you studied only for your country (Russia) but your tool declares "errors" in other countries that have not endorsed at all your "proposal". Stop saying these are errors, they are not. Now people that foloow you are "fixing" things and breaking lot of existing usages, because your proposal is NOT a clarification of the existing approved model, but is deliberately deviating from it in incompatible ways that have not been approved at all.
You should have made this clear in your proposal where it was completely incompatible (notably the fast you want stations to be only nodes, this is competely false and not errors to have them as closed ways/relations). In fact you are just adding to the confusion (not jsut because of this badly written proposal page that ignores current practice, but also because of your online tool that wants to change everything in all countries). — Verdy_p (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
You make a lot of assumptions about me. It's like you've been standing behind my shoulder for the past three weeks and counting countries that I've studied. The rest I'll reply on the discussion page. If you want, we could connect on Skype or Telegram and discuss questionable points about the proposal — it looks more like a series of misunderstandings resulting from bad wording. --Zverik (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
"about me". No just about the proposal and the way it is already being deplyed and enforced by an external QA tool pretending there are errors when they are not! The model has changed in the proposal and you want people to use it according to the self-contradicting proposal and this also contradicts the approved model. This has nothing personal. Most of the "errors" toyr tool detect are in fact false positive every where except in your region of interest (Russia) where you've already applied your model without prior discussion. — Verdy_p (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for support

Hey Verdy,

thanks for supporting my first steps in this wiki greets Joooo (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Calendar Change from 21.10.2017

Hey Verdy,

why did you do this change ?

What is wrong for: Boulder. It is syntactic similar to: Boulder

And that is total correct wiki syntax.

Thanks for your explanation.

Christoph (TheFive (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC))

No the wiki does not need such unreadable encoding, links are displayed when hovered, we don't need such technical encodings. — Verdy_p (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Verdy, yes i understand, it looks really terrible. I will shutdown the OSM BC Calendar Service at the end of the year, and you keep your clean wiki. May be you can support the weeklyOSM Team in generating HTML Tables or markdown tables to continue publishing the calendar. Thanks for nothing Christoph (TheFive (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC))
You know pretty well that Christoph tries to parse the Calendar automatically and used this change as a temporary workaround. The Wiki page stays readable with his change, just the tooltip text of the link might be not that readable as before. Given that you constantly make changes to the wiki that make the source unreadable (e.g. see this) I'd like to ask you to revert your change. --Peda (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not a solution, because he incorrectly assumes that there will always be a city at end just before the coutntry and never any precision with comma between them. Commas are needed even to disambiguate links on this wiki, they are unavoidable, ven if they are not displayed in the rendered plain text.
I proposed to use the microformat but introduced it with the minimal change that does not require lot of edits and tricky syntax to be used by publishers of new events.
It would be fun to have more separate properties for the event name, url, description, location, dates with scheduled times, organizer... all that exist in microformats, but we cannot display everything in the constrained calendar we have on the wiki home page.
I perfectly know that he used a custom parser based on the source wiki syntax. But instead of fixing his parser for the basic Wiki syntax, and performing some validation checks on the result (and logging the few entries that had "problems" to be edited manually before republishing the resulkt on he weekly bulletin, he was forcing the wiki to use a format that was too restrictive, and assumed incorrect things. Just a city name and coutrny is insufficient for most locations in the world (and expecially in large countries like US, Russia) due to homonyms. And the wiki has different ways to disambiguate links.
But making the syntax even more complicate with encoded characters will certianly not help. It is not a "quick fix" but bad workaound that complicates even more the maintenance (imagine what it would be now with countries using names in non-Latin scripts: Japan, Russia). It is a general goal of a wiki to have all texts directly redable and not encoded as much as possible. The custom broken parser used by Christoph is not the only one. And we need that publisher be able to read what is in the wikitext. Even the Wiki's VisualEditor will never encode any wikilink and will redecode it instantly when saving). You should never assume that there will never be any comma in a wikilink target, or even in the displayed label. But should just consider keeping wikilinks as unbreakable units. As well some events need to add more text after the location: this was the case since the begining but then this possibility was broken, and created a format that is difficult to read, or that unnecessarily repeats some words in what should remain a single short line of text.
I don't se what is the problem with the microformat generated: there's never been any requirement to have a city name just next to the country name: what will he do for nationwide or international online events that also occur from time to time (no city, sometimes not even any country)?
Nobody had made any progress to make things a bit better without complicating too much (microformats were wanted since years by various users, and not implemented before I made it correctly, with the strict minimum needed changes but also to be fully compliant with this format, and without breaking any template used within the calendar but also elsewhere on the wiki). — Verdy_p (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The point is, that the general goal of the wiki to have all texts directly readable (as you state it) is and was achieved in both versions as both versions (Christoph's and yours) produced the exact same visible text! It's simply not ok that you feel forced to offend others on any occasion you can find. --Peda (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I have never feeled "forced to offend others", this is really your abusive interpretation that you publicize. If any one is offensed here, it's only me by your supposition and false gratuitous affirmation about my intent. You cannot advance anything by your radical statement when you even terminate it by "on any occasion" ! Sorry to say that but you are now insulting me gratuitouly before you just posted this second message, and I did not offense you or any one personnaly when you posted your 1st message here. — Verdy_p (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
For reference, it started with this issue. You probably weren't aware of that issue when you reverted his changes. Christoph always considered it a bug in the parser and meant it to be a quick fix. But now you are aware could we please compromise to change the wiki back? We already agreed that the user visible result on the wiki does not change and the parser will be fixed at some point. --Peda (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit Descriptions

once again, please add an edit description to all change. this would help to understand the changes without having to do a diff. example comment suggestion: whitespace typo Marc CH (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This was commented just in the same pages in other languages where I had fixed the list of languages for the "iD" editor. Really there are comments for almost everything except things that are very obvious and small as here. Diffs are present everywhere, including in the history or RSS feeds and such diff is extremely easy: the comment would be much longer than the actual change and there's no need to reexplain what has been done multiple times for the same reason. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
the page history does not have the option "if the comment is empty, look at comment in another language", email notification when a page change does not display the comment of another language. so just copy it.
a diff is easy but having to do 10 diff is longer than reading 10 comments.
Please consider why people make this recurring request Marc CH (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Once again the comment here would have been longer than anything else and there was no change of effective content, only a change of presentation for people editing the page. This is purely syntaxic to make the wiki a bit more readable and easier to edit later and also simpler to parse by automated tools (that do not recopgnized all the possible equivalences). — Verdy_p (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Tons of users on this wiki never make any comment, never check what they write, never use any preview (unlike what I do), don't know what is CSS, ignore the syntax, create broken links everywhere, don't know how HTML works, or assume bad things about browsers, languages, or simply post new pages without linking them from anywhere, so these pages become forgotten and unmaintained, difficult to find later. Who helps keeping this wiki usable, if it's not me? I have respected all opinions of others, and allowed many moe pople to contribute, even if they do very little changes or additions or don't know how to do it correcty. These are regularly fixed for them and everyone is happy with that. Without it, this wiki would simply be the mess it was 3 years ago (completely unusable, except by a few British users), and completely decvonnected from the local communities around the world. OSM data would be a haystack of bad tags, never decided, never reviewed, and in fact OSM would have died for too many problems of coherence caused by ineffective/non-working/unusable/unmaintained documentation and lack of effective communications. — Verdy_p (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
"lack of effective communications" using changeset descriptions is part of efffective communication. Please, do this Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
"OSM data would be a haystack of bad tags, never decided, never reviewed" is is completely untrue that the situations was so bad 3 years ago or that ichanged significantly for better. Wiki is useful but you clearly miss influence of editors like JOSM or iD, taginfo and popular renderers Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Being an very very active contributor does not grant you any additional rights. However, people expect you to behave more exemplary than they expect a new contributor to be. By actively ignoring requests to add edit comments, you give your opponents a stronger justification to limit your activities.
Btw, if you write long responses people will less likely read your full response and will just skim it. --Nakaner (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
JOSM and iD would not have been so effective in establishing any "standard" if there was no formal documentation established FIRST by this wiki ! So I disagree: actually JSOM has been able to do that (and include the translations) and iD was developed only after the document on Wiki being navigatable (and usable for the translated UI they also needed). And without it, it would have remained a sollection of unrelated incompatible self-declared "standards" with multiple communities discussing themselves about which tool to use, and how to tag them, and we would not have any worldwide map coverage. HOT would also have not existed at all !
So the wiki was the first need, and it required (and still requires) regular maintenance. Too many users think it is unneeded (pretending they just want to map only, but with this attitude, we would never reach any consensus on any tagging practices, and there would actually be a lot of contracting pages on this wiki with conflicting goals, and we would not even be able to find them properly: the wiki would still be full of red links going nowhere, we would nothave any orthographic convention: yes the OSM data would be a real haystack and this was already growing dramatically until this wiki documentation started to become at least navigatable, and its information could be found in relevant languages without mixing everything. OSM data started being cleaned up after the documentation became more stable and more coherent and discussed/reviewed more internationally by many more people than those that published randoim things at any time and talking about it outside the wiki in many external places that were impossible to follow; OSM data would then no longer be in the hand of individual contributors but fully in control of a few too powerful bots creating their own highly British-biased standard without ever discussing them anywhere). — Verdy_p (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
"JOSM and iD would not have been so effective" even if true you still are supposed to use edit descriptions Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
once again if a change is costmetic, please use comment "cosmetic" + minor edit in stead of asking the world to guest the meaning of your change. it is a easy and good practice to keep history understandable. Marc CH (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Like many others here, I'm also often frustrated by the lack of edit comments. One of several recent examples is this series of changes. I don't find it "obvious" what your intentions were with these changes, and a description would help a lot when reviewing them.
But of course, even in the case of truly obvious edits a description is still crucial while browsing one's watchlist or a wiki page history. The viewer shouldn't need to click through to every single diff view. --Tordanik 17:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

please avoid spamming template:Wikipedia

there is a native linking available ([[:w:Jupiter|random example]] form) that is preferable as 1) it is standard form, rather than some homegrown template unique to OSM wiki 2) is simpler 3) is without an unly, useless and distracting icon Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Except that links to Wikipedia must be explicited by some way, they are not on this wiki (this has always been like this everywhere on this wiki): we clearly identify the site names by some way (sentence, icon,...) and especially when we must be clear and who does what and where ! So no this is not "spamming". — Verdy_p (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Saarland vs. Sarre

I noticed you renamed the English page "Saarland" to "Sarre". This makes really no sense at all, the term "Sarre" is only used in the French translation! The name in English is still Saarland. Can you please fix this again? Thanks. Mmd (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw the two names being used with red links that I am trying to merge in articles in categories. "Sarre" is also used in English, even if now Saarland" is more frequent. OK I'll do that on the page, but we still need redirects for synonyms and Saarland is still the base name in the Languages bar. — Verdy_p (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
You made havoc by copying the contents from onpe page to the other, instead of just reversing the link, and then clearing the "Sarre" page and redirecting to a new empty French page, that was not existing, and then two additional redirects with double redirects. I've fixed that: as there's no French content at all, these new empty pages you added for French are now going to the English version.
So why do you ask me to fix things when you break them immediately and make it even worse? You should know that we can reverse a renaming ONLY if the move is not altered by further edits.
But with your content copy from one page to another (instead of moving it back to reverse the direction of redirects) puts the whole history in the "Sarre" redirected pages that you cleared.
So I see you've been confused and I wonder why you asked me to fix things that you had broken yourself. — Verdy_p (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
There was some issue with undoing your move operation from Saarland to Sarre, I always got an error message that the old name "Saarland" is already assigned. That's why I manually started moving stuff around. This Wiki stuff is really a big pain... Mmd (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not true since long. A move can be reversed as long as the redirect page (newly created by the move operation) has NOT been edited. You edited that redirect by replacing the redirect by the non-sense empty page before, so you could not reverse the move after that (such reversal just swaps the content). In general you should avoid editing redirecting pages kept as synonyms: these redirects once manually edited become permanent and have their own history. — Verdy_p (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
But yes this wiki has severe technical problems (including since the deployment of Mediawiki 1.28 in last June, that causes various havoc and male the maintenance even more difficult and where categories are not updated with their effective list of members, so tracking categories are no longer working and we have difficulties to locate pages or templates used by pages, or using "what links here" which also no longer works: this is an unsolved bug of MX 1.28 that requires background jobs to run, but they fail to start ! and we need now admins to schedule a maintenance PHP script, which was run only once in mid-July). There's no problem in Wikipedia or Commons wikis because they have active admins to schedule these maintenance scripts, and they have local fixes implemented to disable some background jobs and force them to run synchronouosly (as this was the case in MW versions before 1.28: this does not cost Wikipedia a lot, they have large server farms and much higher capacities and adjusting the SQL index of category members when pages are edited is very fast on their very big SQL server, and their internal SQL schema is also tuned specifically in much more complex ways, and very differently from the standard MediaWiki releases; they also run many more bots, including hidden ones for administration and maintenance, and their admins are very active at fixing software problems or implementing workarounds: this is not the case of this wiki). — Verdy_p (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

In my userbox it says "Fredao hails from Sarre" there was always "Fredao hails from Saarland". Afaik my region in English is Saarland and not Sarre. Although I am francophil, the English sentence should be correct. fredao 08:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a side effect of the translated template: initially there was two terms and they generated two distinct categoy names that were merged to a single one.
Note that the template for Germany can select the clanguage to choose with the "lang=*" parameter, but by default it taks the language of the current page (and for most user pages, it is assumed to be in English as there's no language code prefix in user pages: User:DE:Fredao is not necessarily the same user as User:Fredao, they have two distinct login names on the wiki, and if a user wants to make sure his page will be translated correctly he must reserve that secondary login on the wiki because there's no reliable way to identify the language used in a user page or one of its subpages and related talkpages: all user pages are by default assumed to be in the default language of this wiki, i.e. English and even the template you used for the user box has its text in English; some users however have made derived uses with alternate names not for German that were unified; English also recognizes "Sarre" which is a synonym still found in many documents written in English and not just in French; it also still appears in German legal texts for the short period after WW2 in which the land was nearly a distinct state under French protectorate before being reunified to Western Germany in 1953 (when it was a separate state, it was still not a "Land", and French was coofficial with German and its foundation was written in French and English as "Sarre"; "Saarland" appeared in German only after 1953); it still exists also in formal UN documents and in US military and diplomatic archives. The choice to use "Saarland" in English was never really ruled formally ("Saarland" was ruled only for use in German language, and still today, the official diplomatic representations of Germany in foreign countries or in international organizations refer to the land as "Sarre" in French AND English, or "the land of Sarre" in English long form, "le land de la Sarre" in French long form !). — Verdy_p (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't spare me your sarcasms please. This was temporary and is already fixed. And nothing was broken ! — Verdy_p (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Verdy efface ce qu'il n'aime pas. :) Verdy erases what he doesn't like. :) ... @Verdy_p how does it feel to erase unpopular texts? comment vous sentez-vous quand vous supprimez des textes impopulaires? fredao 11:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Non c'est bel et bien toi qui a effacé ma propre réponse, je me suis juste contenté de déplacer ton message dans cette section. Bref pas la peine de mentir ici. — Verdy_p (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

State of the Map Europe 2018

Why did you redirect State of the Map Europe 2018 to State of the Map Europe 2014, with a four year difference? Andrew (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

In fact there is no State of the Map Europe in 2018, this was changed to be State of the Map Poland 2018 (not by me). There were some links refering to State of THe Map Europe (which was earlier changed to 2018, but is no longer suitable, so we are back to the 2014 edition only.

Calendar entry

I don't understand your changes in my calendar entry. Apach (Moselle) - Schengen (Luxembourg) - Perl (Saarland) ... Apach is in France, Perl is in Germany. If you choose Moselle and Saarland, why do you choose Luxembourg and not the district of Grevenmacher? fredao 08:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

THe disambiguation was done at minima like on English Wikipedia where there are lots of synonyms listed; but the real intent was to make evident that they are in the relevant country. Yes I know that Perl is in Germany, but an external parser absolutely wants a single country, so Perl is listed last with the Germany country name sjust following it: this is the actual location of this event, and the two others are associated in a joint cross-border project but not the actual location of the meeting. A precision was need for the 3 locations, but the last one is the effective place of the event.
Given the limitations of the existing parser for weeklyOSM that has too strict requirements, there's no other choice but we still need 3 separate links for each one of the 3 villages in 3 countries... — Verdy_p (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
you should know from SunCobalt, that we don't use the conserned parser anymore. ... I think you didn't get my question. Apach (Moselle) - Schengen (Luxembourg) - Perl (Saarland) ... you mix regions and a whole country. My question was, why you dont use for Luxembourg the district of Grevenmacher, as you used for France -> Moselle and for Germany -> Saarland. That would be a uniform solution for all countries ... and btw that has absolutely nothing to do with a or the parser fredao 19:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
So you would like me remove the term "Luxembourg" which is part of the reason the name "SaarLorLux" was chosen... But not that Lorraine is no longer a region in France and Apach would be associated by almost nobody to a French village. Apach is disambiguated on Wikipedia using the name of the department (and this is also consistant with how French communes are named in this wiki in case of name conficts (for vilalges we don't have French-language specific translations a single article is used that has to be also suitable in English).
If you think we don't need disambiguation "SaarLorLux" will seem very strange, the project is also named after the name of Luxembourg the country and only subareas of France and Germany.
And note that this event is NOT in Luxembourg but really in the village of Germany (so "Germany" is used at end because we can have only one country listed there)...
An alternative listing the three countries: "Apach (Moselle), France - Schengen, Luxembourg - Perl (Saarland), Germany" is also unreadable.
The only way would be to use an even longer sentence, but we still are limtied by the needed presence of the comma separator before the last city name in existing parsers:
I still see no easy solution when there are multiple places that don't match even the same country name.
Verdy_p (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

CC license template names

You renamed a lot of CC license templates recently. Those templates are not necessarily placed manually, though, but often inserted by the upload special page. In the past – e.g. with – I moved them to their current location to match the spelling used by the upload. Unless you know that the upload software is now configured with a different spelling, I think we should take care to keep them in sync. --Tordanik 20:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

These templates need not be changed, their redirects will display without any change. They are unified because various of them were duplicated with different orthographies and not all of them were even categorized or were categorizing in duplicate categories that I have merged. Can you cite a page where this causes any problem? I have checked all links using them I think, they are coherent even if there's another version number. The former names are still working as aliases (I've also fixed possible double redirects that this could have generated, as in your example). — Verdy_p (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Page MediaWiki:Licenses updated (basis for page Special:Upload). --Reneman (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, but this was still not a problem for uploads, the former names were still working without changes. There are other license templates in Category:Media license templates that I collected from various file descriptions, many users don't select the license from the upload form, but set them after, and they have difficulties to find consistant abbreviations. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you from PoliMappers

Thank you for helping us with PoliMappers! --Frafra (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank for all the constant help during PoliMappers/Adventures and Mappy New Year! --LorenzoStucchi (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit Descriptions

It is unacceptable to not use edit description. is spam of 50 edits, every single without an edit description. Please, start using edit description or stop editing. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It was because this was talked (in the associated talk page and on mailing lists). These were missing few things for precision. No it is not spam, but small incremental additions in separate sections (or a new section with commented examples). See that talk page at least. — Verdy_p (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Your "small incremental additions" are a big part of the problem. This is not a series of independent changes, it's the addition of a contiguous new section of text. That should be one edit, not fourteen.
Due to your editing style, the page history is now a lot less useful, filled with an entire page worth of your edits. As you are aware, the page on multipolygons is very important documentation for OSM, and it's crucial to be able to research how multipolygon mapping rules have changed over time. This becomes a lot harder with floods of edits like yours.
In my frank opinion, this kind of history spamming is far worse than normal errors on a page, as it's not possible to ever fix it (at least with normal permissions), and it therefore permanently defaces the wiki. Can you please finally stop doing this? --Tordanik 12:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Tile Usage Policy

Hello Verdy_p, You appear to have reintroduced the tile usage policy text back into the wiki (see ). Can I ask what the purpose of this is? This is an OSMF policy, not one that can be freely edited. Best Regards, Andy --SomeoneElse (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not "reintroduced it", but the deletion of page suppressed a lot of relevant links and all categories (and it was NOT made by the OWG itself). Also I have kept the strong notice at top about the page on the osmf site. So nothing is deleted, there's nothing new. There are other pages on this wiki kept for history purpose that don't need any brutal deletion made silently by someone which was NOT the OSMG itself.
Your revert is simply abusive just like was the previous deletion of content, and your additional page blocking. All that was necessary was to add a strong notice at top (just like it occurs everywhere else). The complete deletion of relevant links (both incoming or outgoing) to this wiki is simply extremely bad, it just has the effect of hiding the presence of this policy (certainly not what you intended). I ask you to restore the page as it should have been, I did not make anything wrong there.
Note that the OSMF uses this wiki to discuss it with the community and this has no impact at all on the current final version published on their wiki. This wiki has already other pages for other policies in discussions, with proposals, and all policies used by the OSMF are PERMANENTLY opened to discussions. This cuirrent wiki is where this occurs and this absolutely does not lock what the OSMF can decide and publish officially on thir web site.
What you reverted to (the deletion of content) was anyway NOT made the the OSMF/OWG but by a single German user. The OSMF has never closed officially this page which should remain referenced including to other related pages and catories. In summery what you did is completely abusive, you did not check anything and your action made this policy almost completely invisible and unreferencable on this wiki, and this just violated the needed history of all discussions that have occured before leading to the current state of the official policy.
Also the page contained other links for tiule users on other tile servers than just those of the OSMF: they had their own policies referenced here, but totaly absent from the no-relevant OSMF site page. — Verdy_p (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
For info, I haven't reverted anything, Firefishy did (and I haven't spoken to him about it either, he presumably just spotted the edit at the same time as me). I just asked "why the change?". --SomeoneElse (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Why the change/full deletion made previously by a random user then (it is his blank version you kept) ? he did not justify anything, he was not reverted... But other info related to usage policies on other tile providers are NOT on the OSMF site. This page was not just for the OSMF cartocss rendering... Firefishy was not the one that initially blanked this page, he should have looked at the history and would have seen that my edit was genuine and there was abasolutely no need to lock the page on its blank state it has now (which proviudes now absolutely no info at all and now uselessly pollutes this wiki after this blanking, as a dead-end page). This was really unfair: the Ombox notice at top was sufficient to expose the current OSMF policy clearly without clearing the rest, as if it was never discussed and will never discussed and concerned only the OSMF (which has its own site to do everything it wants). — Verdy_p (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Note that other pages on this wiki that had links to the OSM site are now blanked as well by him, this was never announced or discussed, and these pages are now orphaned where it should have remained a central page for announcements by the OSMF and all its community members and chapters. It's like if everything was closed and engraved on marble. Really unfair and unnecessarily blocked now by Firefishy. May be this was discussed in a small community or in the German list, but this is not the general international community where this wiki is not just for the OSMF. What is then the purpose of this open wiki if one decides that it's just for some closed working groups of the OSMF, and a single people who is not even member of these working groups decide themselves to blank any contents they want ? This is a really bad sign for the community at large to lock these pages permanently by just a single personal decision and there was absolutely no abuse at all. — Verdy_p (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, the page wasn't initially blanked by a "random user" but by one of the System Administrators (and for completeness Lonvia is a she not a he). Firefishy who reverted your change is also one of the site Administrators. --SomeoneElse (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
She is a sysadmin for Nominatim, but not related to the OWG, and even if this was the case, this wiki is another area for a larger community, and these policies are normally open to talks and the wiki page in question was not only for the OSMF's policy. The missing categories and related links makes the page simply completely useless. It was enough to add the leading notice without blanking all the rest (even if it could have been refreshed selectively for obsolete statements). Blanking everything is just the poorest and laziest solution, when the replacement is completely different and has a more limited focus and is completely locked down. There's nothing wrong in locking the statement on the OSMF wiki, but here this goes to a page from a single subgroup at the OSMF and several subgroups are creating multiple versions for the same policies which are discussed in unreferenced places. Ignoring the history of these is completely anticooperative, it just restricts a page to the view of a very tiny group of people in London. Good for the OSMF wiki (for what it has to say), but very far from the objectives of this community wiki which is intended to be worldwide, multilingual and open to various contributors and to various tile renderings not supported at all by the OSMF. — Verdy_p (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The objective of a community wiki includes being able to correct other people’s mistakes. That doesn’t work well here because it’s very difficult to fix your mistakes.--Andrew (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
My mistake ? Really ? There was nothing wrong, but the complete blanking was a mistake ignoring everything anyone did (including what Firefishy did himself). Really curious seing you going to that blind conclusion and no evidence at all. — Verdy_p (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spanish community logo change

Hi Verdy_p,

I have a question, Why did you changed the logo for the Spanish community in the Logos page? (here is the change from this Osm es.svg to this Mychosm Spain.svg)

I think that the Spanish community has right to decide what is their logo (an in fact it is this one: Osm es.svg) and to have it in the Logos page.

Did you asked anyone from that community before doing that change? Or at least checked what logo is more used in Spanish wiki pages?

Best regards, --Alejandroscf (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've used the logo that was already on the Spanish page, both logos are referenced and listed along with other regional or local logos in their category. I've not seen in fact any decision anywhere to use one logo or the other. But most sites use the logo with the Spanish flag and not the old draft logo with the "ES" letters...
In fact the Spanish page had its own logo changed by another Spanish user, and external social sites display the flag and not the "ES" letters). Both logos come from Spanish users, created at different times. — Verdy_p (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
No, thats wrong, in that date when you modified the Logos page, the Spanish page had the logo with the letters "Es" Here the Spanish page state in that date.
That sentences shows that you know nothing about the Spanish community and you haven't checked that "external social sites" you mention, the logo with "ES" is not a "draft" as you call it, it's the one chosen by the community. It is used in the Twitter account, the Facebook page and the Telegram group. Also if you look at the usage of both images official "Es" logo and flag logo, you'll see that the "letters logo" is used in many pages and the "flag logo" is only used by one project and (recently) the Spanish page.
About the las paragraph, indeed we are discussing the usage of the "flag logo" in the Spanish page in its talk page.
I think that you do a lot of useful work maintaining the wiki, but some of your edits turned to annoy many people. I think that messing up with the logo that a community has chosen it's not the best move and that will only report you bad reputation. --Alejandroscf (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
It is not me that changed the logo on the Wpnish page but another contributor, and it was made by another. The Logos page is just a generic one where you can find others by visiting them.
It's a fact that the logo with the flag was the one effectively used, except on a single page of this wiki (where it was changed by someone else, befeore you started contesting it)
Leave aside such unfair personal attack, I did not do anything wrong and in fact added multiple logos used by other communities, and referenced them in their relevant categories when this categorization was missing. This was basic maintenance, and if I had not done that maintenance nobody would have noted the existence of this logo as it was dififcult to locate except on a single page where it was changed by someone else than me (and there's never been any discussion: as far as I kno, there 's no "official" community in Spain organized as a chapter and all the content is made by various contributors acting isolately, but sometimes discussing with each other. Yes you can ask this to a formal talk page, but there's never been any actual community decision about this logo used here or on other social networks or sites that were only created by isolated people and changed by them as they wanted at any time they wanted. — Verdy_p (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)