User talk:Verdy p/archive13

ILGA downloads[edit]

Hi Verdy p, I see you have in the past dowmloaded ILGA maps and would like to know which license you used. I want to download their annual report on State homophobia, which they specify is under free license, without mentioning which one specifically. Could you help me on that? This is the report I want to dowmload in French:

ILGA http://ilga.org/downloads/2017/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2017_French.pdf INFORMATIONS SUR LES DROITS D’AUTEUR La 11e édition de Homophobie d’État est le fruit des recherches d’Aengus Carroll et Lucas Ramón Mendos, rapport qu’il a rédigé et qui a été publié par l’ILGA. Ce document est libre de droits à condition que vous fassiez référence à la fois à son auteur et à l’Association internationale des lesbiennes, gays, bisexuels, trans et intersexes (ILGA). Référence proposée Association internationale des lesbiennes, gays, bisexuels, trans et intersexes (ILGA) Carroll, A., & Mendos, L.R.,Homophobie d’État 2017 Une enquête mondiale sur le droit à l’orientation sexuelle: criminalisation, protection et reconnaissance (Genève,ILGA, mai 2017).

Kind regards, --Nattes à chat (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which file exactly ? I'm not sure this was even coming directly from their site, but I know I have worked on such a map (but can't remember where it was)... verdy_p (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even find any map related to ILGA, except a more recent download made by someone else (you! not even giviung such credits that you're asking to me!)...

Did you delete my files before asking if I had made that myself, based on their (PDF) reports? I'm sure I worked on an SVG version and ILGA does not publish any map in SVG ! verdy_p (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Countries[edit]

Salut. je ne sais pas ce que tu as cherché à faire, mais tu as cassé le modèle, qui ne reconnaît plus les majuscules. Exemple ici dans la Category:Ministers of Justice of Bulgaria ; ce modèle devrait lister l'ensemble des catégories de type "Ministers of Justice of" +pays d'Europe. Il ne repère que "Ministers of justice of Bulgaria", qui est une redirection, et aucun de la dizaine d'autres existant. Merci donc de corriger, ou de revenir en arrière. Rhadamante (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cela ne vient pas du tout de ce que j'ai fait aujourd'hui (en Afrique). Le module (écrit par d'autres avant) ne reconnait pas les anciens alias possibles si on ne le lui indique pas: des données sont donc manquantes ou il manque des liens et il faudrait peut-être renommer certaines catégories qui ne suivent pas la même convention de nommage. Sur le module générique ce que je lui ai ajouté est la reconnaissance de certains caractères latins accentués manquants pour le tri automatique par défaut (nécessaire pour certains noms latins, comme le "Î" ou "i" oublié en français pour le mot "îles", ou d'autres lettres latines en polonais, catalan, tchèque, etc.), et la reconnaissance du préfixe "Category:" pour former des liens et non une catégorisation même si on oublié le ":" initial (qui n'est donc plus nécessaire au début du préfixe). verdy_p (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dans le passé cela marchait peut-être avec la version "template" (qui testait la présence de certains alias), mais pas depuis que la version "module" est là. Il est également possible que des liens de redirection aient été supprimés sur Commons pour reconnaitre un nom de page ou de catégories avec ou sans capitalisation insignifiante comme synonymes. verdy_p (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK je vois le problème: en voulant matcher le nom de l'espace de nommage (ceci n'est fait QUE sur un espace de nommage spécial tel que Category ou File où un lien nécessite un ":" initial), le préfixe est localement converti d'abord en minuscules; mais ensuite la réécriture du préfixe trouvé utilisait cette conversion en minuscules, au lieu de reprendre la chaîne originale du préfixe pour lui substituer seulement l'espace de nom spécial sans toucher au reste du préfixe. J'ai corrigé comme tu peux le voir dans Category:Ministers of Justice of Bulgaria.

Il ne sera plus jamais obligatoire d'indiquer ":" initial dans le préfixe (erreur fréquente auparavant), mais le module conserve l'espace de fin de préfixe s'il y en a un indiqué. On aurait pu forcer l'ajout d'un ":" initial partout, mais c'est un "quirk" qui en cas d'excès aurais produit un lien vers "::Category:Nom" et je préfère réserver le "::" initial pour une extension future des liens spéciaux de MediaWiki. verdy_p (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i18n[edit]

Bonjour.
Pouvez-vous lire et suivre quelques discussions?

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J’ai fait ~~un faux pas ici~~ et voila conséquences ☹ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quel est le problème ? verdy_p (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Maps&oldid=287736816&uselang=sv
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Maps&oldid=287736816&uselang=nl
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Maps&oldid=287736816&uselang=el
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Maps&oldid=287736816&uselang=ar
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Maps&oldid=287736816&uselang=zh
Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C'est un bogue du module Fallback qui ne gère pas correctement l'option "default" comme cela le faisait dans le passé, je suis en train de voir ça.

Ce n'est pas un bogue du modèle Maps. verdy_p (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour le dépannage! Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

La version sandbox est prête et testée. Il ne reste qu'à la déployer. Comme indiqué, les fallbacks de Commons sont traités en priorité, puis les fallbacks de Mediawiki (à l'exception de 'en' qui est présent partout, sauf si la langue cible est l'anglais, auquel cas 'en' est gardé en tête), puis 'default', puis enfin 'en' à la fin. Le résultat est visible sur Module talk:Fallback/testcases (qui utilise la version sandbox) et affiche la liste complète des langues dans l'ordre (y compris la langue demandée en tête de liste).

Cette liste est la même maintenant pour "translatelua", "autotranslate", et "LangSwitch" (ce n'était pas le cas avant qui n'utilisait QUE les fallbacks de MediaWiki) et n'oublie aucune langue de repli possible et respecte l'ordre des fallbacks indiqués d'abord dans le paramétrage du module Commons, puis dans l'ordre de MediaWiki (seulement les langues qui ne sont pas déjà listées dans la liste locale).

Au passage j'ai supprimé les récursions non finales (dans l'ancienne fonction fallbackloop qui était non optimale) pour réduire le nombre de boucles nécessaires et il est garanti qu'une langue ne figurera qu'une seule fois, ce qui là encore accélère le rendu final en évitant de tester des langues plusieurs fois.

Si je peux améliorer encore les choses c'est d'inclure dans les fallbacks les codes langues en plusieurs versions (exemple: "co-it" devrait avoir "co" automatiquement inclus) pour être pleinement conforme à BCP47 (et il ne serait également plus nécessaire de paramétrer localement, ni même sur MediaWiki, le repli de "de-ch"ou "de-at" vers "de", ni non plus "fr-ca", "fr-be" ou "fr-ch" vers "fr", ni non plus le repli de "zh-hans" ou "zh-hant" vers "zh", ni non plus le repli de "sr-ec", "sr-el", "sr-latn" ou "sr-cyrl" vers "sr").

Mais il sera encore possible de paramétrer localement (ou sur MediaWiki) le repli de "nds" d'abord vers "de" avant "nds-nl", et le repli de "nds-nl" d'abord vers "nl" avant "nds"... verdy_p (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Localities_of_cities_and_villages[edit]

Localities of cities and villages has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries of South America[edit]

Hi Verdy p. I see that you have been editing the template {{Countries of South America}}. I am not an expert in the matter, that is why I am asking you: why does Uruguay appear as "UruguayFY" ? It happened from this edition onwards. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it should show the label as defined (and translated) d:Q877 in Wikidata. I made the edit you cite a long time ago. May be the label in Wikidata was modified at some point, but I dod not see any label in any language defined there where I see "UruguayFY" (may be it was already corrected there). Also the template I created is now handled by a LUA module created long after my edit several months ago (modeled from the similar template for Countries of Europe, which was the first converted this way using a module, based also on the initial template I created).

If you still see this incorerct label, which language are you displaying? verdy_p (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for keeping former French regions ?[edit]

Are you sure that your reverts towards administrative divisions long dissolved makes really sense? I'd say no. --Århus (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons keeps lot of historic documents to these former regions. They are still needed ! verdy_p (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: new regions have in fact very small quantities of contents, removing the former regions breaks many page that are left uncategorized in lot of missing categories.

Copmmons is not just about current entities, most contents in fact are historical and the former regions have existed since much longer than the new ones (for which the categorization is still superficial. Many medias are now spread over unliked categories and not where they were expected due to the removal. There's no much maintenance in keeping these former regions. verdy_p (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to the historical dimension of former regions: yes, that's true *for some pictures* but certainly not for every sub-category, as a matter of fact for *most* sub-categories the history is totally irrelevant. --Århus (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Verdy_p. I agree with Århus. Re-creating such categories like Category:Bodies of water in Poitou-Charentes is irrelevant and a loss of time, just because it appears in a blocked model, {{Regions of France}}. Poitou-Charentes no longer exists, but the category is still used should continue to exist for a few old regional maps, like Category:Maps of Poitou-Charentes, and some cultural events. The actual divisions in France are the department and the region (here : Nouvelle-Aquitaine, since 2016), that's all. See discussion above (in French, where @Père Igor: agrees with me). Please spend no time in this. Cordially, Jack ma (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These decategorizatrions were done without keeping the necessary links; now there are many files left in categories that are not at the most precise geolocalisation. And many of these files do NOT apply to the new regions (which exist only since 2015) but only to the former regions, putting them in the new region is clearly ambiguous when they can be, and should be geolocated more precisely and not mixed with other files applying to the whole new region. Most of these files are about former regions that have existed since much longer than the few years where the new regions have existed.

There are separate categories for new and old regions and it's simple to keep them separate and not confuse users which don't know which one to use, but even if they choose the former regions these should still have all the contents they had (notably their departments which occur in both).

There are lot of other historic reghions in Wikidata which cannot be described with today's administrative units, including for example the former provinces of France. It's very hard to track correctly the history of places if you mix everything according only to the new definitions (which are not accurate enough to describe correctly and completely the former area, and without including other areas which were not part of them, and were also historically distinguished and separated from other competing historic regions which now may fall partly in another new region, possibly partly in the new one discussed here or another). If you mix everything, the data model suddenly becomes flawed, and it's impossible to calssify and sort items correctly and precisely, as this gives contradictions by unexpectedly conflicting declarations, and it will be impossible to use Commons to find accurate contents related to a precise known area at a precise date or period of time (you'll get lot of false positives with lot of content non relevant to the scope of the search, and lot of content which should be there but are now excluded due to the deletion of necessary links).

These categories have NO cost at all, they form a separate parallel structure; most files (but not all) will use more precise geolocation, except those that are directly bound to the former regions (and there are a lot of them!) and where the new region is simply incorrect (these files are correct for a specific date or period where the new region did not even exist! they cannot be poart of the normal categorization of new regions but CAN be part of the topics related to the **history** of the new region, which is not born suddenly without any past).

Removing these old regions is equivalent to erasing completely the history of the new regions, as if nothing happened there before 2015: you are making the equivalent of an autodafe, you are burning books and create new regions that have NO past at all. verdy_p (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most precise geolocalisation is the department, all categories have it. Some categories of the former regions (between 1947 and 2015) are now useless like Bodies of water... or Geomorphology in... Department then new regions only apply. And we are not speaking here about historical regions, but administrative regions.

To be more precise (I take an example) :

There has never been question to delete Category:Poitou-Charentes, which contains Category:Geography of Poitou-Charentes, which contains Category:Maps of Poitou-Charentes, which contains actual maps of the former region.
"Empty" categories like Category:Bodies of water in Poitou-Charentes, that only contains the categories by department (which are already contained in the new region Category:Bodies of water in Nouvelle-Aquitaine) will be deleted again. It is completely useless to re-create and maintain "dead" branches.

Jack ma (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were NOT empty and there were various files left there in these "deleted" categories (yes I reclassified them, there are still files in some of these regions). This heppens regularly. There's in fact no need at all to delete these categories, it's just enough to keep them as is (and make them all part of the relevant category of "by former region" inside the category "by region"). This allows checking these and finding files that still fall into the categories for old regions, just because that's how they are known and users expect them. Many users in Commons have files related only to the old names (they are not all French and do not know exactly how the new regions are composed), their sources already indicate the name of the former regions (that were those that existed when their original subject was considered, as seen in the asserted dates of creation).

Deleting them will not free up any space on Wiki server (they are only hidden, but this unnecessarily complicates the task of Commons users, and of various import bots that will suggest various categories not matching the expextation, so users will select them more or less randomly). I've also seen other users recreating them (but not reclasifying them correctly as they were, or creating them with variant names, creating various orphan branches or duplicate branches for the same topic, which is by evidence still desired and expected). verdy_p (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need most of the categories for former regions. The only things categorized under a former region should be things that apply to the former region but not to the new region. There's no need to categorize under both a former region and a new region. Since departments apply to the new regions as much as to the former ones, we could start by removing those.

Some other former region categories we don't need are bodies of water (and similar geographic features), monuments historiques, nature, structures, and visitor attractions. This is because thee are all physical things that don't move and they apply to the new regions as much as they did to the former regions. The former region categories could be merged into the new regions' categories and then be either redirected or deleted.
Categories we might want to keep for former regions include things like coats of arms and flags of the former region (but not those of subdivisions of the region), some government categories.
Some categories would need discussion. For example, the people categories: do we categorize a person under a new region if they died before the new regions were created?

Those are my preliminary thoughts. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But all departments are applicable as well to the former regions. If you break these links, contents will fall into these regions even if they could be subcategorized in categories for departments that are both children of categories of newer and older regions (when they both exist). It's a fact: sonce these were removed, many files are left orphaned in random parent categories for France, as people (and import bots) don't know how to find a more relevatn categoy, or they are added to both regions when they could be categorized directly in the more local department (or smaller divisions). There are numerous examples: these categories have a near zero coast, will most often contain only categories for departments but there are always exceptions to this where the medias will not belong to a precise departement but are still not very well suited for the newer regions. You cited maps as examples, but there are also maps of water bodies: under your rule they would need categorize in the category of waterbodies of a new region, and in the categories of another older region, and this generally causes lot of confusions and does not allow easy imports: the number of categories to place for each file becomes larger and you've not saved any space, jsut made the categorization even more difficult to maintain and unpredictable (that' why since this deletion many categories localized for France that were clean and eaisly maintained before are now full of dispersed files that are hard to find where they should be.

I still maintain that these categories have NO cost, help saving costs, helps import tools, helps users to locate where to place their files appropriately, and then help other finding them where they should be (files on orphaned categories are just forgotten, hard to find, frequently they will be uploaded again as duplicates (most often with under a different name and categoized differently). These deletion of categories that were perfectly accurate and relevant before, has absolutely NO benefit to anyone and the large manority of users better know the older regions under their older names that were known since long the new regions (only 3 years old) have stil lnot updated all their documentation and still refer to the older regions in their own legal archives and communication. As well INSEE and statistics agency, or ISO references still refert to the older regions that have been there since at least the begining of computing (and later the Internet and Wikimedia). We have lot of documents stil lcreated today that refer directly to the older regions: they have not really disappears, the only thing that disappeared is their current administrative status and their current regional assemblies, but they are not the only topics related to these regions which have a very long tradition in France. So these "old" regions are still very far from being "historic" (it won't happen before one or two generations, and for legal documents it won't happen before at least 70 years, i.e. roughly 3 generations). The new regions also have still not passed a significant step of stability and acceptation, they may be reformed again or could be totally removed, and only the former regions of 2015 will persist (the "new regions" will be forgotten even more rapidly!). verdy_p (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Verdy_p : Empty categories should not be kept on Commons. I will delete them when I have time for it for Nouvelle-Aquitaine, as I did last year. Typically : Category:Bodies of water in Poitou-Charentes (see above) : they contain NO file, except department categories that are in the actual region. The Category:Bodies of water in France by former region seems to be useless (if all are empty), and Category:Categories of France by former region should be peopled only by categories that contain actual files (e.g. Category:Maps of Poitou-Charentes). Jack ma (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not empty, and there a still files or other (non-empty) categories that should be there too, but whose link was cut. You still don't understand that deleting them offers no benefit at all, it just further complicate later maintenance and semi-automated categorization during imports, where files will have many superfluous categories added to them randomly, instead of the single one that is accessible through all search paths. If you looked really to the issue, you would knwo that instead of just making blank assertions (about how it should be in your opinion, but which is not because we find exceptions everywhere and each time we need to recreate the missing categorties that were incorrectly purged and deleted, mixing everything elsewhere in some broad parent category that rapidly becomes overpopulated, because peopel don't know where to better place their content).

There's a clean way to avoid breaking this and without compilcating the life of uploaders, it's by clearly identifying former regions and newer ones and separating them. There are lot of files that are not just focued on only one topic but that cover multiple topics and the simple fact of not subcategorizing these topics by the same regions that they refer to directly means that we endup with lot of miscategorization. People should not have to wonder which one to choose when an accurate closer (smaller) region should match all cases. verdy_p (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we won't get agreement here on this user talk page, and that even a majority opinion here wouldn't be binding. Maybe we need to take this to CFD. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All this discussion is linked to {{Regions of France}}, where initially both the former regions appear as well as a new ones in a transitory and temporary state, in order for us to move the categories from the old regions to the new ones. The official administrative Regions in France are the new ones since 2016. See the template discussion page, where even you, Verdy_p, wrote "Later this version may be updated to keep only the new region names." The former regions have only existed from 1947 to 2016, not for centuries as you said (let's not confuse betwwen historical regions and administrative regions, that are groups of Departments). It is not necessary to re-create thousands of categories if only very few are (and will be) used (for Nouvelle-Aquitaine and Occitanie, no link was lost when I deleted categories of the former regions, the Department categories are the base nearly everywhere). No category in Nouvelle-Aquitaine nor Occitanie was overcrowded, because eveything is under Department categories. Many categories under the former regions are to be deleted. I agree to talk about all this at another discussion page... Jack ma (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You quote what you like because I added this precision "but they are still contested politically and adminsitratively in courts, and former regions are still widely used and needed for many historic reasons and because most open documents in Commons are still referencing the former regions and actually not the new ones except in cases that are still exceptional". You also removed the Maybe that started the sentence.

My reasons are clear: these former regions are still in use much more often than the new ones (except for official adminsitrative purpose, which is still very exceptional compared to the rest). And we can find many examples of this everywhere (including in the content of the media files themselves which cite them directly, and in all regions named in documents that fall in public domain). Administratively they have existed under different status even before 1947 even if their boundaries were not always stable (and I'm not refering to the former provinces in the Kingdom of France up to the end of the "constitutional monarchy" in 1791, before the 1st Republic and its creation of departments with radical change of the geography; regions started to have some effects during the 1st Empire, at prefectoral level only but also with some restoration of powers of the clergy or organization of commerce, police, army, agriculture and education, more or less taking their names from the former provinces, and with the progressive organization of regional academies; this was effectively formalized completely in 1947; lot of old cultural documents refer to them; lot of statistics refer to them; even ISO3166-2 took time to refer to them and there are still international uses along with ISO 3166-2). For now there's no real sign of deprecation, even in today's medias (including TV, tourism): these regions are effectively no longer adminsitrative but will persist for long as cultural regions with their own identity well distinguished from the fuzzy identity of the new larger administrative regions. verdy_p (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As well when I said "we may remove" it was only refering to the content displayed by the navbox, and not about the categories themselves. And it is perfectly possible to disable conditionally the display these links in the navbox in categories related to the new regions, and display only them in categories for former regions (there are examples in navboxes for countries that show how this can be done). verdy_p (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite agree with you. The process of moving from the old to the new regions in France is slow, but still in progress. Excuse me, but you are acting by pure nostalgy. It is like re-adding all parallel categories to Germany with Category:German Democratic Republic and Category:West Germany, every single category like e.g. Category:Bodies of water in German Democratic Republic, and adding categories "... by former countries". In France, administrative regions have been replaced, officially and definitively. But, historical and cultural regions still do exist, like Picardie, Alsace, Bourgogne, Franche-Comté, Limousin ... but not Poitou-Charentes, Languedoc-Roussillon, Alsace-Lorraine, etc. Not every former region was a cultural one. We have to distinguish administrative regions from historical regions. Jack ma (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"We have to distinguish administrative regions from historical regions". Yes I perfectly agree withg that statement. But there is not any confusion at all as they are clearly distinguished (as "former regions", themselves part of "cultural regions" and of "former divisions" of France, within which we find other entities like the former provinces, former communes, former arrrondissements, including former ones that are now in other countries, like Algeria, Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany). And this is absolutely not a question of "nostalgy", but effective use (and because this is part of history and most authored items found in Commons are +70 years old or are not in Commons, the new ones being authored by Wikimedia users themselves or being in the public domain when they originate from some juridictions). Even the new enoough docuemnts were created more than 3 years ago, and still refer directly to the former ones. The former DDR is not a good example because it is still much older and it took more than 30 years to transition its past. Yes the "administrative" regions have been replaced "adminsitratively" (I would not bet about "definitively", adminsitration changes constantly), but absolutely not in newcoming documents or documents still being created now. Politicians and official sites still refer to them (e.g. "New Aquitaine" is much too large for focusing anywhere precisely for everything, by evidence it has geographic divisions, but the department level is too small for many uses).

Locating items in Commons is not easy and as evident as what you think: if we can effectively identify a specific commune, we'll sort in that commune for even for some of them this is also too large and we need to focus more, or sometimes do the reverse. The current administrative hierarchy is also less and less effective because it is less and less "hierarchic". Even INSEE has NOT removed the former regions from its statistics and its "COG" because it needs to keep statistics continuity (and many statisitcs are not refreshed every year, take the example of general population survey, it won't occur every year but every 10 years, so minimum conituity requires keeping them for 20 years!!!). verdy_p (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't edit-war[edit]

When you make a change and it is reverted, you take it to talk. You don't obstinately continue to try to make changes that are not agreed. In this case, they are positively detrimental, and I explained why in my previous edit summary and have now explained at length on Module talk:WikidataIB #Ability to categorise. Module:WikidataIB is in use in over a million pages, and significant alterations to its functionality need to be thoroughly tested before deployment. Please don't waste my time any further, or I will seek administrative action against you. --RexxS (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I signal the bug. This is a very basic fix. I don't know why it is rejected, because it is effectiuvely creating incorrect categorizations via related links that should just be displayed. There's a theory but it currently does not work as intended : I did not change that at all, ther's no change in functionality.

You have made an edit war on this, it's unbelievable you don't admit it. It was not a "test", the tests were done before applying it and there was no break at all. verdy_p (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bug. You don't understand how the module is used and you cluelessly started fiddling with it. The version you messed up offered a template designer the option of displaying a link to a category by setting |linkprefix=":", or of adding the page to the category by setting |linkprefix="". Your mistaken change removed the second option and forced the display in every case. If you believe that an infobox where the module is used is adding a page to a category where it should be displaying a link to that category, then give me a link to an example of that. Otherwise, I'll thank you not to meddle further in things you don't understand. When you screw up you ought to have the decency to admit your mistake and apologise. --RexxS (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are really bugs when values are displayed as annotations of values (e.g. annotations of values with dates and references giving a location, such as a place of publication, or a reference to the origin of a name: they should display the label, instead the infobox categorizes and no label is displayed).

I did not say something wrong, you just refuse to admit the bug, and you should have the decency to apologize for your attitude and your mistake, when you screw up bad assumption about things that you still don't want to see or just understand... Given your agressive "professoral" attitude, you should also apologize. You can do errors/bugs like everyone, but refusing to admit it is difficult to pass.

Almost all uses of infoboxes are displaying links to categories and NEVER want to perform any categorization (what you want to do but that was never intended and never documented; the Wikidata ontology is almost never the same as the Commons categorization, there are exceptions everywhere on Commons, and an infobox should NEVER autocategorize without extreme care, proper documentation and a way to disable it on Commons by removing the explicit parameter; you made it implicit and it is extremely bad). verdy_p (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)::[reply]

What infobox exists where "the infobox categorizes and no label is displayed"? Give me the link. Either put up or shut up and stop wasting my time. If you don't like the documentation, then fix it yourself, because I'm under no obligation to make it to suit your taste. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "my taste" but real bugs in basic rules of Commons, that are violated by incorrect assumptions you made without checking (and by deviating an usage to perform something like autocategorization that was never decided, and in fact wrong and undocumented).

Once again you are unfruitfully agressive with your unqualifiable language ("wasting my time", or "shut up", sic!). I'm NOT wasting your time, but want to make you aware of a problem: the infobox does not work as expected if labels displayed are instead performing autocategorisation. This is unexpected and should not have occured.

Once again you are "obstinated" (sic!) to perform "detrimental" (sic!) assumptions that the Wikidata ontology (not made just for Commons) has the same structure as Commons categories and that references in infoboxes collected from Wikidata info are intended to perform categorization on commons, this is wrong and should never be implicit. What you do with this invisible extension of labels is simply bad. Labels are just labels to display and link nothing else. If you want you can still create another API (getCategory instead of getLabel) but I bet it will be rejected on Commons which is not categorized this way directly via infoboxes (which are used without any parameters). verdy_p (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense. There are no bugs, other than the imaginary ones in your mind.

MediaWiki does not have a special "category" text. When we do this manually, we create categories from the label we give to a topic, just as we create links from the same text. That's why Commons is able to direct a default link to the Category: namespace, rather than to the main namespace as the other projects do. There is absolutely no reason to do that any differently when we generate links from the text that we have available on Wikidata. Who the hell do you think you are to call my programming "bad"? I have a damn sight better track record for producing code than you have.

Now give me an example of where "the infobox does not work as expected" as you continually claim. You can't, can you? --RexxS (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Reinette du Canada, you'll see that the template incorrectly categorizes in Category:Normandy for what is normally a label displayed after a approximate date as an indication of origin. This is a proof, absolutely not imaginary. That label should link to the category, not perform ANY categorization.

Stop your constant abusive (and nonsense) aggressions, and your obstination of saying you cannot do bugs. The bug is real ! There are countless other examples where labels linking to categories are actually categorizing incorrectly and not displaying the expected label.

I'm not here to loose your time but your obstation is a severe loss of time for all others and your constant attitude is completely unacceptable, totally anticollaborative and fully contradicting the Commons policy.

If you refuse to admit you can do bugs, and reject your own faults to others, you have NOTHING to do in Commons. In addition you make constant false personal assertions against me without any proof (and it's easy to proove that you're unable to perform any basic search or investigation for correctly reported problems, anbd notably by changing unilaterally and secretly a function that was not designed for your goal: autocategorization by inference from Wikidata has NEVER been discussed or approved, and it has NEVER been really experimented but you have made it in a template used by millions pages where experimentation and bug tracking should have been used since the begining before applying it globally).

I proposed a solution, you refuse it abusively by constantly using war terms. Stop your personal war. verdy_p (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brazil Biocountry[edit]

Category:Brazil_Biocountry has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Verdy p/archive13

Contents

ILGA downloads[edit]

Module:Countries[edit]

i18n[edit]

Category:Localities_of_cities_and_villages[edit]

Template:Countries of South America[edit]

Reason for keeping former French regions ?[edit]

Don't edit-war[edit]

Category:Brazil Biocountry[edit]

Navigation menu

User talk:Verdy p/archive13

ILGA downloads[edit]

Module:Countries[edit]

i18n[edit]

Category:Localities_of_cities_and_villages[edit]

Template:Countries of South America[edit]

Reason for keeping former French regions ?[edit]

Don't edit-war[edit]

Category:Brazil Biocountry[edit]

Navigation menu

Search