User talk:Verdy p/archive16

Edit warring[edit]

Hello. You have already been blocked for edit warring. Edit warring at Template:Topic by country/layout is unacceptable. This may get you blocked next time, for a long period of time (e.g., several months). 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the talk ? And the massive edits made automatically by that user that refused the fact he made numerous errors and false assumptions (that finally he admitted, partly) ?

He broke years of work from amny users, chaing the categorization unilaterally, without discussion, without documentation, without testing.

I did not break his work but wanted to fix it (he is slow in admitting he made these errors).

This was done by him strictly alone. I gave examples and rationale about why this was not the way to go and that such massive deployment was undesirable.

This was initially NOT a "widely used" template (which was not documented at all, not categorized itself, not announced anywhere) before he posted it to thousands categories, replacing their content without looking at the effect. This is clearly in a beta stage, and should have not been applied massively as he did (automatically changing >3300 categories without looking at them, notably all the most important ones at country level). All these massive changes should have been blocked and reverted as it was wrong in many places and it cancceled all the necessary descriptions, without scrupulously looking at them. It used also lot of costly parser calls for things that do not even exist.

And really he should have been blocked because of its denial of errors (that he finally admitted if you look at the history and talks...).

verdy_p (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not try to justify edit warring. Nothing justifies edit warring. Edit warring is wrong per se, no matter you are on the right side or the wrong side. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even when what he did was clear sabotaging of thousands categories (removal of descriptions, translations, and place-specific categorization (creating also overcategorization in various ones, or not considering the many problems caused by names that need disambiguation) ? Now those affected categorfies are no longer editable by anyone, their "magic" categoization is hard to fix without looking into this huge template and multiple subtemplates which are horrible to maintain and fix, due to their too large scope (and lack of specification). It also dramatically increases the numebr of costly #ifexist calls, without even finding the correct pages to link with...

He made multiple errors (e.g. sorting Yemen in Europe), and ommissions (forgetting various countries and mixing entries for historic countries, dependencies and disputed territories that require a more specific categorization system taking into account needs nad frequent disambiguation). This was applied not jsut to UN members (which are quite clear, except in several wellknown disputed areas).

This template now lists everything at the same scope. And he also deleted subnational categorization, transforming correctly popualted and discrimanted categopries into empty ones where the topics are no longer covered (notably for the "political" and "geographic" categories sorting current and historic maps or data and events). His massive change was extremely radical. Even the best categorized countries (like France and USA) were affected. And nothing was done to preserve the translatability. verdy_p (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4nn1l2 is more patient than I am. I would have blocked you as you should know better considering your last 1 month block. The behavior displayed at Template:Topic by country/layout are childish. If you have to revert someone more than 3 times except for blatant vandalism or copyright violations, you need to involve an administrator or mediator. End of story. If you edit war again, you will be blocked. If you edit war on a template again, you will also lose template editor permissions. ~riley (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian ToC[edit]

Hungarian does not alphabetize A and Á separately. Letters with accents are alphabetized as if they were their unaccented counterparts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but this is about lookup for navigation in pages of categories, not about the distinction between primary or secondary sort order. verdy_p (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian dictionaries intermingle the accented letters with their unaccented counterparts, so no Hungarian who knows alphabetical order will search separately for A and Á. In fact they would be confused to see them listed separately. If the items have been sorted properly, than A and Á will be sorted together. The only reason a separate navigation would be needed for Á is if there was an error in setting the DEFAULTSORT on an item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, but many categories are not necessarily sorted using Hungarian rules (inclusing categories intended for Hungarian), as there are lot of templates that categorize or change the default sort key, or do not allow passing a sort key. adding a few links in the TOC still allows listing what is missing (and which may be very populated). As well listing these letters in the order in which they should be sorted helps people using the correct sort key expected.verdy_p (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listing them implies that they should be sorted separately, but they should not be. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with Template:CategoryTOC-es, which does not list A separately from Á even though Spanish has accented letters. This is correct; the accented letters should not be listed sparately from their unaccented counterparts.

Spanish also has the letters CH, LL, and RR, but these are not listed separately in the ToC template. Spanish dictionaries have never considered accented letters as separate letters for alphabetization either, but older Spanish dictionaries consider CH and RR to be separate letters for alphabetical purposes, and even modern dictionaries still list words beginning with LL as a separate letter. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could they still be listed in smaller characters, between parentheses, after the primary letter ? With an option to enable/disable them where appropriate ?

There are many examples in Commons where categories are not sorted with the correct/expected keys for a specific language as most categories are in fact multilingual. Unfrtunately there's still no support for multiple sort keys of the same page, depending on the target sorting language.

All categories are mixing languages (and independantly of the user's language or preferences in languages like Chinese that have multiple sort orders: by Pinyin romanization, by stroke, by radical; even German has two main sort orders competing; the assumption that sort order is unique is simply false in most languages). There are many items added to a category whose naming is also not in the target language of the category (including pronunciation audio files for Hungarian, actually named in English).

The purpose of these TOC bars is to allow searching in very populated categories that have no evident sorting (and frequently no consistant sorting for any language). Their use in categories which have an evident classification and whose content is mostly complete is not needed: these categories normally have less than 500 members, all is on the same page (no TOC needed), and it's possible with little efforts to get a consistant order for their members. verdy_p (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a general community discussion, and not somethinto be worked out between the two of us. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Decade years navbox[edit]

Hi, I just reverted your edits to this template because they created problems i.e. in Category:2007 photographs of Burundi. A lot of expr syntax errors appered. Please have another look and fix this issue. Thx. Ju Ta 10:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert, this is usage problem in another template.

The revert causes other problems that were solved. verdy_p (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, where is the problem? I cannot find it. The calling template Template:Countryphotoyear2 wasnt changed since Feb. --Ju Ta 10:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can look into the Burundi case, but this works everywhere else (see other similar categories in other countries)... verdy_p (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt work for likely manny <year> photographs of <country> categories. Another example: Category:2012 photographs of Cuba. and thx for checking... --Ju Ta 10:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ma checking this just now; the problem does not appear in all countries. And the template has many other uses than jsut for photos by countries (which is where it seems to appear). verdy_p (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those cats dont use Template:Countryphotoyear2 but some country specific variants. The problem "should" be in the "interaction between Template:Countryphotoyear2 and Template:Decade years navbox. But where? I cannot find it. --Ju Ta 10:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there's a missing parameter with no default value which causes this expression error; this is somewhere in the specific template for photos by country. Don't hurry on this, there are many other problems elsewhere that my edit fixed; I wonder where is that msising parameter, but get sure I will reviridy this. I made already a lot of tests for that, but usage of templates is sometimes inconsistant. Looking for tem requires patience as these usages are difficult to locate. verdy_p (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thx a lot. I will knock on your door in w few days if "nothing" changes. --Ju Ta 10:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is occuring in the "displayredlinks=maybe" case only; I'm fixing it.... verdy_p (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the problem: the keys for categorizing years in each category by decade uses a "Formatnum" template which is not only not needed at all, but that does not work correctly; keys for sorting these cats do not depend on any language; that Formatnum template was changed recently and has a new bug. I'm dropping its use. verdy_p (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found an incompatible recent change in Mediawiki which now recognizes parserfunctions with case significant letters ("PAGESINCATEGORY:" or "pagesincategory:" were equivalent, now only the uppercase version is found: with other letter cases, it is parsed as if it was a template transclusion, and as the template was not cound, it generated a spurious link causing that error).

That's why it occured only in the "maybe" case of the template. So this is fixed now (also "includeonly" for such templates is harmful, especially for categorization where it is difficult to test it correctly; I've changed to make the categorization names and keys displayed explicitly in the template page itself only; this allows more immediate testing of the effect. For such test, I included useful default values for parameters that are used only in the template page itself and not included) verdy_p (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thx a lot again :) --Ju Ta 12:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broken templates due to recent edit in Module:Wikidata label[edit]

Hello. Your recent edit in Module:Wikidata label have broken Template:Institution and thus Template:Art Photo. Can you fix this? If not, please, can you undo? Pinging @Jarekt: as well, as other editor on that module. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ederporto (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{Photograph}} is also broken. --jdx ^Re: 14:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I tested it, I had just incorrectly retyped a variable name unvoluntarily while rereading, changing an 'z' to a 's' in "capitalization"; this is fixed I think.

I wanted to understand why this module takes so much memory now and breaks in many places that require lot of translated labels.

I am trying to sovle the huge memory problem (commented in this edit comment and inside the code comments).

Now getLabel takes up to 7MB at first call, then 2-3MB per call, meaning that you rapidly exhaust the 50MB limit per page after only about two dozens of getLabel() calls...

This is a major defect (inside the Wikidata module that apprently attempts to load all properties of an item instead of just those requested, and visibly does it without using any cache for queries; or the cache is not working properly; this generates a huge load on this server, and lot of pages very long to render: I'm searching the origin of that huge memory use and very long time on server, with lot of CPU load as well: any small fix in performance is still going to the right direction, but for now what I made this is not for the main reason of this severe degradation).

There's visibly a hidden defect in the Wikibase/Wikidata interface, possibly a new architectural problem for the design of query caches. verdy_p (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Years by ending day of week[edit]

I have redone my changes that you reverted. A category like Category:Common years starting on Monday does not belong under a category for the day of the week that the year ends on. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. These are perfectly correct! These categories are for Gregorian years categorized by dominical letters which indicate simultaneously: the day of week they start on, and the day of week they are ending on (not necessarily the same for leap years which have two dominical letters).

Note that some historic years were locally applying several calendars (Julian then Gregorian) and can then have three dominical letters, but these categories cannot sort multiple calendars simulatneouosly; whever the calendar is Julian or Gragorian (or another derived calendar like Pisan), they all have one or two letters (in their respective calendar, which do not necessarily start on the same date on January 1st of the Gregorian calendar, which here is proleptic for all locations where the Gregorian calendar was still not effective). But in all cases a starting day for any single common year or a single leap year has a well defined starting daya nad a well defined ending day: they are directly correlated (just consider the next day after the ending day of any year in the same calendar).

If you don't understand the topic at all, jsut check or ask ! Your deletion attempts are NON-SENSE.

Note that there were lot of errors due to mixed calendars, and classifications of dates in this wiki was problematic: there are now explicit definitions, and Wikidata itself distinguish the calendar type used for each specified date (and will then convert these dates to the same Gregorian calendar (possibly proleptic) as the common reference (this does not prohibit having other classifications for other calendars, inlcuding Julian, Hegire, Persian, Japanese eras, Coptic, but calandar conversions will be complex and these categories are not country-specific and not based on local legal or historic calendar rules...).

verdy_p (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to shout or be uncivil—it is possible to explain why you disagree without doing that. I will look at addressing this via CFD. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did not use the CFD process, but a speedy deletion request (with abusive, false reason), meaning you did not want any discussion, instead you applied deletion without any prior talk

Sorting dates by calendar is important to avoid confusion of dates, and one of the way to check dates are properly entered in the correct calendar is to assert they fall on the correct expected weekday. Such deletion requests are not fair, there's evidently a need to add categories for Julian dates, and a few other calendars that are still official (instead of Gregorian) in several places of the world and disambiguate historic dates (depending on places and years because the Gregorian calendar adoption was very late in history in many places). verdy_p (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, speedy deletion is what I did in the past. CFD is what I plan to do instead, since you objected. And the reason for the speedy was not abusive or false, even if you disagreed with it. Please try not to see disagreement as abuse. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is for other reasons which are clearly limited. You misused it. And don't forget that there are ongoing works to properly set the correct calendars, and not everything is sorted as it should (so there are still missing members that should be there). Waht you used was an emergency expeditive procedure which was obviously incorrect (and you made actual deletions of pages, which are tricky to create without errors; the conditions are quite complex in various templates that need updates, including to avoid overcategorization; in adition there are also errors in Wikidata which are visible here by false autocategorizations). verdy_p (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Common_years_by_ending_day_of_week[edit]

Common years by ending day of week 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 ∙ +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for stepping in and fixing the issue with Module:Wikidata_art yesterday. I wonder if you would be interested in helping with Module:Map code, see phabricator:T252259 I was trying to help 2 users write that module, but I do not have enough time at the moment to really make a difference. The idea is to do something similar to Module:Artwork but for Map template. --Jarekt (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: Wow, this is a huge module. I understand you need time, but I would also need time to study it.

What is the problem they cannot fix ? I don't understand everything in the Phabricator bug, there are many aspects and don't know which parts may have already been fixed, or if there were temporary workarounds applied to avoid some issues.

What I did above was a basic safety check. But as I see that you are constantly adding things in Artwork templates/modules. I did not want to change the current logic deeply.

I first made an edit to fix one nil condition before seeing rapidly that both concatenated variables could be nil. Then you correctly managed to reorganize the conditions (in several lines of our code, I just changed one so that it was no longer breaking on thousands pages). Now I am refreshing the >~6500 pages that were affected (with Pywikibot -touch -cat:"Pages with script errors" -ns:File, running very slowly at around 8-20 seconds by page but not modifying any one). My early fix in your module immediately stopped the counters of errors in "Category:Pages with script errors" that were growing very fast).

verdy_p (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I was approached with request to help with Module:Map, I agreed to help guide the process and spend about a day starting the module, but I am afraid that 2 ladies interested in developing the module do not know any Lua, and might be having hard time with continuing the process. Module:Map does not have to be as big and complicated as Module:Artwork, which mainly does 4 tasks: (1) mimics old {{Artwork}} template, preserved as {{Artwork/old}}, (2) pulls data from Wikidata, (3) makes sense of data in Commons {{Artwork}} infoboxes and sends it to Wikidata using QuickStatements, (4) implements {{Book}}, {{Photograph}} and {{Art photo}} templates in addition to {{Artwork}} (those templates overlap a lot but there are some differences). Module:Map would just do tasks 1 and 2, and I would suggest to first deploy it after it just does task #1 of mimicking {{Map}}. Module:Map would not need to call or depend in any way on Module:Artwork, but a lot of ideas can be lifter from it. It can call Module:Wikidata_art, Module:Creator, etc. to handle parts of the code the way Module:Artwork does. So task #1 would be to get write Module:Map in such a way that if you replace {{Map}} with {{Map/sandbox}}, the template should not change. By the way, I can take care of files in Category:Pages with script errors. --Jarekt (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:La Croix-Rouge (quarter of Marseille)[edit]

La Croix-Rouge (quarter of Marseille) 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 ∙ +/−

Fr.Latreille (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Number cat/layout[edit]

While it appears that you maybe working on correcting some of the issues, your first edit to this template on 6 June 2020 messed up a very larger number of pages and dependent templates. For example: Category:Items numbered 100. Accordingly, it is making it difficult to complete other category edits. Please consider reverting the massive change, and then make the improvements incrementally. An Errant Knight (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was made incrementally,n with many tests, there are tricky cases that I wanted to resolve and that are solved now. But there were existing dangling HTML comments that were not only not necessary but made editing and adding change even worse (without improvbing the redability at all). I kept the code indented logically.

I can look at other problems that are remaining. But a simpel revert will just break again the cases I solved, and will once again make the template very hard to edit.

verdy_p (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not a "very large number of pages" from my counting, even if this may effect a few hundreds. I'm looking at this (apparently there's a mess up between "n" and "nc" parameters (note: I've kept the "debug" option for the preview, but just presented it to show other parameters without taking too much space on screen for the preview. verdy_p (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I made the templates more easily translatable (I added French for example). verdy_p (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this minor bug. Yes it was minor and not affecting at all a "very large" number of pages. verdy_p (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This editor would never have the arrogance to assert to know what this editor does not know, which is why this editor acknowledges not completely understanding the complexity of much of the code used. However, this editor can see when templates are not working correctly.

Glad to know that the not less than tens of thousands of templates that still don't appear to be working correctly are 1) "not a 'very large number of pages'" and 2) despite what actually appears on the screen, really are working correctly, because you claim they are. An Errant Knight (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why such agression, with the term "arrogance". I checked, and definitely this did not affect a lot of pages. And anyway I fixed other problems that you probably did not see (including the possibility of editing translations, which was quite complex in the current layout, and proved to be errorprone with the unnecessary HTML comments around most newlines (which are not only unnecessary but even more complex and costly to parse, both for the parser and for the human reader: some of these comments were not correctly paired, and this was not visible in existing tests, and I fixed these problems in a cleaner way). There was just one character typo in a parameter named "nc" instead of "n", only in some cases (and only for the categorization). verdy_p (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "arrogance" was originally in reference to this editor, but "if the shoe fits. . ."

You claim that the problems have been resolved, but this editor still observes in excess of tens of thousands of pages that are not working correctly, so please stop asserting you know what you apparently do not. If you are unable to fix the issues (which you either are unaware of or chose to ignore), then the matter will need to be elevated. An Errant Knight (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've not demonstrated at all these "tens of thousands" of problems. And this cas not caused by something that left more than a few hours. So given the time it is corrected now, any problem that may have occured is already fixed, unless you exhibit some proofs. I made much enough tests for that and took into consideration the small bug signaled above. Stop you complains, any one can make transitory unsuspected errors: Commons is large, it's hard to see things that were not documented at all, and badly written since the start (yes with other existing bugs that I fixed). verdy_p (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that your efforts regarding this template are focused on the Natural numbers category, and to your credit, that category's layout is substantially improved and looks fantastic. However, it was done at the expense of the not less than tens of thousands of others.

This editor highly envies your ability to make problems cease to exist by simply denying their continuance. You demand "proof", but continue to ignore anything that disagrees with your narrative. You were originally given a single example of the problems you have created (Category:Items numbered 100) and, despite all your claims otherwise, it still persists. Furthermore, a search of the not less than tens of thousands of pages that link to the template in question and not more than a handful (at best) will have a layout that works like it should.

This editor is deeply saddened that you chose to deal with this and other issues in a manner that overwhelmingly overshadows your apparent expertise and understanding of the technical nuances of the matters in question. An Errant Knight (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My demands of evidences is reasonnable and in full compliance with existing community rules. And your agressive words won't help any one on this project, evn if there was a small typo that was left (because the template was not documented at all and in fact not properly tested before). I promptly fixed the issue you raised, so why do you continue on it?

I have made much more tests than you did, and secured the templates to cover more edges cases, making them also easier to edit (final stop). I deny your "statistics by the nose" asserted by you without any evidence. And you cannot say have no expertise at all to fix such problems. You have yourself made countless errors (often much more critical) that were fixed by others after a long time. Everyone can make errors notably on undocumnted features that have NO coverage test at all: I added several coverage tests as well so that obvious sytnax errors can be seen directly in the page preview before applying it.

I am not ignoring the other cases that may remain but that are for now not broken at all, unless you provide some evidence for things I could not detect.

As well your way for counting by justing looking at the total number of usage of a template (from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Number_cat, a category that I had already checked long before your first post above, none of them showing any error after many tons of pages in it) is wrong: this total includes ALL cases together, even if they generate different code, and almost all of them were not affected at all by the small (prompty fixed) bug (and even if there's a bug, it is now easier to isolate by using the improved "debug=" parameter when previwing a page). verdy_p (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When, if ever, you are willing listen to what the problems actually are, rather than intensely contend how they have already fixed, please advise. In the meantime, this editor will be seeking other options to rectify the problems you have created, but continue to adamantly deny exist. So respond away about how the prevailing problems really don't endure,. . . because you say so. An Errant Knight (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I DO NOT deny anything that you've still not demonstrated (and don't want to demonstrate). I deny that I created the problems that you want to assert without any proof of existence. I see the fact that you still don't want to admit that I really fixed much more than what I broke very temporrily (and that was easily and rapidly fixed and that affected a minority of pages, not thousands; all those pages are now OK, until you proove there's more problems still not seen). You insisted above with bold that there remained a problem in a category, but I don't see any one in that "evidence".

But with your constant agressive position above, there's no progress possible. I will now have to search and show all the errors you made, and this won't be productful at all for anyone. Everybody makes unexpected errors, the only good attitude is to signal the problems, notably when this was caused by undocumented behaviors, so that we can search for a better solution (and most often the fix is easy and fast to do: there's no need to be insulting like what you do). verdy_p (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider reverting the massive change. The navigation in several categorys is now broken. For example: Category:Trams with fleet number 1000 and all other numbers, not only 1000. --Clic (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem. Can you explain what is wrong/not working ? I've kept all the functionalities. The numbering classification is still there. the paret categories as well verdy_p (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems to work again. The box trams with fleet number: showed always the numbers 1...20 and not used numbers around the selected number, e.g. 1000 on the linked page. --Clic (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the biggest problem resulting from your changes. A lesser, but apparently related issue deals how the subcategories are sorted by these changes. It sorts the subcategory by key "=", and then by number. For the category Natural numbers, this works and looks great. However, for most, if not almost all the hundreds of dependent templates, this sorting does not work--they should be sorted by key " " (blank space), not by key "=". An Errant Knight (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The blank is reserved for something else sorted before the **many** numbers (and that should be visibnle from the top page without having to search many pages after). There are a mix of keys otherwise in some categories using blanks as well. verdy_p (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RomanCat[edit]

I’m trying to assume good faith, although I know you from past encounters in FotW and Unicode-L. This template before your massive remake was not perfect, so I hope you’re working on improving those issues, not messing around with established practices (such as sortkeys and parent cats) nor wasting time with layout changes (I’m not impressed with what I can see for now). The current state of the /doc page is worrying, but I trust that you’re working on it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The /doc page had almost nothing. I've documented what was missing. And created a sandbox for testing that.

The layout is the same structure, but more readable with less (unneeded) HTML comments and correct indentation. As well there are better tests for parameters, various optimizations and support for some other uncommon Roman numerals (which are already in use in this wiki, but were not working properly with that template for categorization).

I've also documented the Unicode codepoints (there are possible confusions with similar looking symbols). verdy_p (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s your answer, seriously?, instead of fixing the glaring errors your edit introduced? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me just one such error? I've made lot of tests before, with the sandbox. There are still some duplicate categories generated but this does not cause issues.

Also I don't wanted to "impress" you or anyone else. Just make things clearer (removing the HTML comment garbage, using precise and ordered indentation, suring all parameters had a default, even if it's empty, adding defaults for the preview, dropping the "includeonly" which is harmful as you can't see the effect of any change without saving). Then I applied some real changes (I can ensure they were small): support for case difference, support of more kinds of "uncommon" Roman numerals. All this was also added to the documentation subpage (where you did not initially use the TemplateBox, a comment from you saying you did not know how to do that).

Seriously, what do you complain about? verdy_p (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Random example: Category:MDXCV (numeral) — it redlinks parent cat Category:MDXCV and it should not; this kind of parent cats should be linked only when they exist (as they do for all 2-letter combos and some 3-letter ones). This function (ifexists cat "AA letter combinations" then do cat else ifexists "AA" do cat else quit) was implemented and working properly in the previous version, yours is not quitting when it should. Fix this, now, I will explain all your other mistakes next. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The doc subpage? The one you botched so badly it was unusable? No worries: I fixed it now. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "botch" the /doc subpage, all the "templatebox" was commented out and had NO value at all!! verdy_p (talk)

This is the “unbotching” I had to implement. (You really didn’t notice the mess you left behind?…) Nothing to do with Templatebox, which is a UI nightmare good only to scare newbies away; it is meant to make templates usable with VE and therefore useless in Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) These three letters — "Ɔ", "ɔ", and "ᴐ" — do not belong in a Roman numeral. Having the template parse them as a synonyms for "Ↄ" is as much of a good idea as to parse "∨" and "ᐯ" as alternates for "V". -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the category link for Category:MDXCV was NOT tested at all before my changes (instead there was a test using the "nocat1" parameter which I have kept). I made no error: if there's an error it was preexisting ! I suppose that using "nocat1" was to avoid a "costly" #ifexist. But I can add this test that was no present before. verdy_p (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red cats were yes tested against in the previous version as you can see in Category:MDXCV (numeral)/RomanCat-template-test, whose parent cats, auto-generated by the previous template (now forked at Template:RomanCat/previous), are only Category:Individual Roman numerals, Category:1595 (number), and Category:5 letters — not Category:MDXCV. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand Category:MD (numeral)/RomanCat-template-test is correctly auto-categorized with parent cats Category:MD letter combinations and Category:Roman numerals with 2 sign elements, which already existed. Your template must do this too, instead of creating bogus red cat links. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the three letters there are detected as aliases (yes they are more commonly used than the compatiblity Roman digits (encoded in Unicode because of Asian fonts that use fixed-width cells). In reality there are turned letters C, and open O both being used in various documents (just like there's an "infinite" symbol which is in fact used as ligature of "cxɔ" or "ciɔ" which themselve look much like a "m" when the legs are joined in text handwritten with a plum). Many printers have confused the open O and turned C. verdy_p (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I remember you from Unicode-L, and I see you’re still the same, learnt nothing after being schooled so many times by the very best people there. Anyway, I stand by what I said about open "o"; your obfuscation will be deal with in the template’s talk page once you finished your revamping of the template. (And feel free to rearrange my replies to match your special ideas about indenting, as this is your talk page. As it is now, it is a mess, here too.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blatant personal attack without founding and no evidence. Now you pretend to be one of the "best people there". Who is arroguant?

I just avoided the mess caused by the old practive of using HTML comments for "hiding" whitespaces that are in fact stripped automatically (and more efficiently by the wiki parser at lower cost. I also demosntrated that the "includeonly" was harmful on the wiki, because you had to save your edits before seeing the effects of a change. Templates that generate autocategoization don't need complex hiding or any "includeonly": on the template page itself it's simply to force the categoization to become plain text inside the page (just put some character between the two first "[" (I just used the LRM mark) inside a small "noinclude" tag): you can immediately test on the previewed page the effect of some parameter values (giving in "noinclude").

And now you can use a coherent indentation everywhere for all "#if" or #switch to align their braces properly and most HTML comments are avoided (never needed in branches of #if, #switch, tempalte parameters explicitly named...). The Wiki parser is in fact less efficient when you use HTML tags but can trim strings as appropriate without complex code, and in fact it is even shorter in memory during parsing.

I've not "obfuscated" anything. I just detected the "uncommon" uses.

On the opposite the inclusion of autocategorizations and other metatags should not be surrounded by blanks, to avoid generating additional paragraphs or word/line breaks but if these are trimmed by surrounding #if branches that are trimmed, you don't need HTML comments around these metatags. verdy_p (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) You keep obfuscating, which is a pity, because in your word salad above there are some interesting nuggets. Anyway, I never said my template code was good, indeed I started this thread saying it was not. You’re very welcome to improve it, or even to wholly replace it with a new, better thing, but you must keep existing categorization and avoid red links — and you failed at both. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not fail at both: what you see isthe mess that already existed BEFORE (since long) and that was not created by me !! You even saw that in the talk page of the template!

As for red links they were ALREADY present, not tested: I had just kept the existing code, making it clearer, before changing it gradually. verdy_p (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you gotta calm down. Look at the parent cats of Category:MD (numeral)/RomanCat-template-test and compare them with Category:MD (numeral), look at the parent cats of Category:MDXCV (numeral)/RomanCat-template-test and compare them with Category:MDXCV (numeral). If you keep insisting that the previous version of this template generated the same red cats as yours does now, then you’re either gaslighting me or you’re seriously incompetent — and I have no time to waste with either. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any difference except for the additional "Roman numerals including (1 letter)", which were ALREADY present (but missing in your "test" page). verdy_p (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for Unicode, the better ones who schooled you, or tried to, were many, but I was certainly not one of them: I am comparatively a pigmy in all things Unicode, and I never wanted to school you (not even in FotW-ml, although in Vexillology I’m less of a pigmy, as you know), it’s too much toil for so little result.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But If you are still not convinced that I did not break the categorizartion, just look at Template_talk:RomanCat, you'll see that the "nocat1" parameter was created a long time ago by another user, exactly for that purpose, and I've kept it as is. There was NO #ifexist for the case you show here, only a test on "nocat1" and I've kept it (it was not documented before, I addedit to the doc page, which preexisted, but contained the error text that I just kept and you corrected after: I jsut added the template box to it as it was not filled, had dummy content and commented out). I could have corrected the top of the doc but this was really a minor issue and did not impact the existing use of the template. verdy_p (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You «could have corrected the top of the doc»?! No, you should have corrected it immediately (and I’m shocked that it was maimed like that in the first place!), or at least commented it. As it was, it was misleading and confusing for any third party. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That nocat1 param was not my choice and I was never happy with it: It was a hack to fix some special cases ("ↂ" and such) and it is used in a handful of categories only. I was surprised you retained it: A properly developed parser should not need it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But If you are still not convinced that I did not break the categorizartion, just look at Template_talk:RomanCat, you'll see that the "nocat1" parameter was created a long time ago by another user, exactly for that purpose, and I've kept it as is. There was NO #ifexist for the case you show here, only a test on "nocat1" and I've kept it (it was not documented before, I addedit to the doc page, which preexisted, but contained the error text that I just kept and you corrected after: I jsut added the template box to it as it was not filled, had dummy content and commented out). I could have corrected the top of the doc but this was really a minor issue and did not impact the existing use of the template. verdy_p (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot correct everything left in errors by others ! ~I'm not liable for errors made before by others, (and the minor syntax errors in the top of the pager was not a priority: I was working on the bottom which was completely dummy.

Please don't order me to manage everything at top of priority. I'm not paid by Wikimedia, I've no order to receive, not timeline to respect. Your oerder is very agressive, and in fact all the above is a competely unjustified agression based on FALSE assertions (because you did not bother to really check what you oppose to me!). I'm not liable of these past errors that I am trying to fix, gradually (so without suprressing code without further tests about their utility). verdy_p (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down! You continue agressions based on false accusations about problems that were preexisting and not created by me !!! verdy_p (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've very unfairly ordered to me to make a change, I've just made it to test the redlink now. But I must repeat it again: the red links were ALREADY present. So I just added the new #ifexist inside the #if "nocat1" test which is still there.

You are too hurry! I make changes gradually but I cannot change everything at once without performing additional tests.

You urgent requests are not reasonnable at all for a bug that was there since many months and caused by other people!

I was not supposed to fix everything at once (so your suggestion is an evident demonstration of your incompetence on how to work cooperatively on this wiki! You have no idea at all about the impact of changes).

Your attitude also on this page is very agressive and very undfriendly, and based only on false assertions (because you did not check correctly your claims or don't know how to do that).

verdy_p (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have not splitted your messages, you constantly reply out of order on this page. verdy_p (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:County roads in South Dakota[edit]

This is not a category of South Dakota by county. A category by county would have the words "by county" at the end of its name. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The exact naming is arbitrary, there's no such requirement; as long as theey are categories only ands they are sorted by state name... There's not always a "by county" in the formulation. verdy_p (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The naming is not arbitrary. There may be no written requirement, but there is precedent on how "by <foo>" categories are used. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But these categories already don't follow this naming requirement everywhere. I'm just unifoirmizing what is present to be consistant across states. verdy_p (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your changes to US county categories[edit]

You are putting these categories into invalid categories. Please stop these changes. If you think the changes you are making are valid, please explain your reasons and get consensus. Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put them as they are for *most* states. And in the most evident location which is on topic for them.

Feel free to add some parent categoriesif you want. But I need to do that to check what is missing before creating anything. verdy_p (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another invalid type of change[edit]

This change was invalid. Any Alabama-related "by county" category can go in Category:Categories of Alabama by county, even if it's a child of another category that's already there.

At this point I would ask you to stop making any changes at all to things related to US counties. Not only because of the things we have already discussed, but also others. For example, I saw your change to Template:Counties of California, and you apparently don't know that San Francisco is included with both city and county things here. We do not refer to San Francisco as a separate kind of entity (municipality). --Auntof6 (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the model of other states that distinguish the type of county or "county-like" entity. They are listed separately to exhibit this distinction. San Francisco is the only "county" which is in fact a municipality (with city status) in that state, it is the only municipality that is not part of any county. As well other states have separated the census-designated entities (when they are not organized as municipalities. You're wrong ! I followed strictly what was already used, but made this consistant. verdy_p (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also you are reverting what is really an OVERCAT that I fixed !!! verdy_p (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Large white (Pieris brassicae) underside.jpg[edit]

You have added two categories to at least one of my images, though they do not show when I try to edit the page, so I could not remove them if I wanted to. Category:Multilingual descriptions using conflicting language codes and Category:Multilingual descriptions using deprecated language codes. Can you explain the errors I have made please and how to remove the categories where errors have been corrected, Thank you. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in that page but caused by a template (asessments). I'm looking at it, it has some incorrect translations. verdy_p (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: This is solved. There were legacy languages codes used internally inside translations for assessments of "Pictures of the day". These were in languages whose wikipedia have been renamed using a conforming language code. verdy_p (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits (Category: Wikimedia sandboxes/tmp)[edit]

Hi Verdy p, Could you highlight the intention of [1]? I think you are trying to perform a refresh of the categorization. Can this be alternatively be performed with a null-edit? --Schlurcher (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? Category: Wikimedia sandboxes/tmp. I see only repeated addition and then deletion of this category in a large number of files.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No this does not work, and it is extremely long. This is MUCH faster and works with an actual edit to add something that can be removed instantly. verdy_p (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second George's question, as you performed it on hundreds of my files too. Whatever purpose it may serve, this is spamming watchlists and should be avoided, unless really necessary. Please respect that in future. Thanks! --A.Savin 02:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was temporary as indicated, and for a limited group of pages (about 4000 file description pages). You would be easily "spammed" (I constantly receive notifications from edits made by many people) by many other things (such as moving group of files in a subcategories: this happens all the time on the wiki as they are sorted; and what I did was no different: categorization/decategorization even if this looked "bounding"); I tried several things, and this did not work with a null-edit or with forced refreshes/purges, or even with PWB... All these pages had to be edited in a non-destructive way (adding a dummy category) and reverted; nothing was changed in fact. verdy_p (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles containing Hebrew-language text[edit]

Can you please help? Look at: Category:Articles containing Hebrew-language text. There is one article there. What template is placing that there? It may be {{ISO 639 name he}}. Evrik (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was in Template:IPA-he. I fixed it verdy_p (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Evrik (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[:Category:Categories of Maine by county]][edit]

Category:Categories of Maine by county is not a metacat. If it were, the contents would be things like "Category:Categories of Androscoggin County, Maine]], Category:Categories of Aroostook County, Maine, etc. Few, if any categories whose names start with "Categories of" are metacategories. Please stop marking them as metacategories. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're alone to defend this position... This is a category for all the metacategories for all counties of Maine itself... Naming is correct for what is listed inside (all named "xxx by county", where "xxx" is the topic ("Categories"). Otherwise we would not even sort "Categories of Maine" inside "Maine". You're just defending that "Categories" cannot be a topic. This is illogical.

I don't see any reason why you can't have any metacategory inside a metacategory like you can have a metacategory inside a category. CatCat is in fact the same as "MetaCat", the criteria is in fact identical (except that you don't want to have any "Categories of xxx by yyyy" inside "Categories of xxxx" where they group logically and properly sorted at top with a leading space in the key). verdy_p (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was there consensus for this?[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Israeli_cities_in_Judea_and_Samaria_District&diff=427823219&oldid=427822956 is obviously at least a potentially controversial move. Was there a discussion that developed a consensus to do this, or did you do this unilaterally? - Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was controversial, just basic sorting. verdy_p (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you don't think changing "West Bank" to "Judea and Samaria District" in a category name is liable to be controversial? Is there some consensus on this that I have missed? - Jmabel ! talk 02:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Both exist, but the names are distinguished, and israeli settlements are part of Israelis divisions and still categorized as well inside Palestinian divisions where they are located. I've not changed this. verdy_p (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have revert this edit. Judea and Samaria District is an official district of Israel]]. -- Geagea (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geagea: no, you didn't revert that edit, you changed (maybe reverted?) something else.

I won't get further involved in this, but if there is a clear consensus on when to use "West Bank" and when to use "Judea and Samaria" I hope it is clearly documented somewhere, and I would strongly recommend that edit summaries for such changes reference the place where consensus is documented. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank is the official UN terminology since 1948. Judea and Samaria is the new name of an new District unilaterally decided by Israel while annexing the Jordan Valley and Zone C in the West Bank (Zones A and B are still in the Palestinian Authority, but the new claim on Zone C is against all UN resolutions and Zone C is still formally inside the competence of the Palestinian autority (UN terminology) or Palestinian State (for some countries that recognize it as a state), or Palestinian territories (zince 1948, but a terminology that Israel itself refuses to endorse, even since the 1967 Armistice).

So this is a problem. We have to make the two coexisting: Palestinian territories covering the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Israel annexed unliaterally East Jerusalem as part of its Jerusalem District (it also annexed a small part of the West Bank inside this district), and also annexed unilaterally last year a large part of the West Bank (all Zone C). The Palestinian autority and its governorates still formally claim all the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, but de facto, it is now highly fragmented by the Israelian annexions...

I am fully aware that this causes controverse, but I'm not the cause of this controverse, and we need to present the views from all parties (not just Israel or the Palestinian Authority, also the UN view). But Israel has ignored all past UN resolutions. Israel even never ended its war with a Peace treaty, but only came to an armistice with all its neighbours, based on the "Green Line" that it has broken multiple times, so even the terms of the 1967 Armistice are ignored: Israel is really still at war against all Arab countries and even refuses any form of cooperation with the local population of the occupied territories. I cannot resolve this conflict. All we can do is to present the views of everyone (so that no one can rewrite the history. Even Israel did not exist has the modern state before 1948, and before it was the Mandatory Palestine only, and for many centuries it was called Palestine; even during the old Kingdom of Israel or in other prior Jewish states, it was not called Israel, but Holy Land, or Cannaan Land; there were many regimes and multiple invasions by several empires from Europe (Greece, Rome, British), Africa (Egypt), Southern Asia (Persia), Western Asia (with Arabia, Ottoman) and even Eastern Asia (with Mongols)). Jewishes have moved in various places, but kept in pockets and spread in a large diaspora worldwide, before the recreation of modern Israeal, but Arab peoples and others are there since very long now and they have to coexist on the same land (the Holy Land is not just for jewishes and Palestinians, i.e. Arabs native to the land, not all muslems as they are also christians, there are also Persian, Greeks,... all religions are there; it's just like Lebanon as well where there's a more natural coexistence in a form of cooperation and share of powers, without necessarily creating a federation, but with still several recognized local communities and personal legal statuses and multiple juridictions). But as long as Israel will not have a Constitution and will not enter in a full Peace treaty agreement, the war will continue (even against all UN resolutions, it has never ended). verdy_p (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old maps of Israel[edit]

Hello Verdy p,

Please do not remove this category from old maps. -- Geagea (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've not removed them... They are still in old maps.

But the category of Israel starts in 1948 (properly separated from the Palestinian territories). Before that there was a single region named Palestine (geographically) and with many named politically. verdy_p (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the category Old maps of Israel. Please don't do so. The name Israel is long before Palestine. -- Geagea (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NO the category is still there (proof: Category:Old maps of Israel), I've not "removed" and not even redirected it! I've even helped to add significant content to it.

I's a problem that Israel is nothe the exclusive claim of the area, and the parent category "Palestine" is the name of the geographic region where there are two existing states. But I know you are in Israel and you want to rewrite the history, even if "Israel" is used on this wiki for refering only to the state created since 1948. Even before (and for many centuries), the Jewish have called the area "Palestine" (also Holy Land with the Christian influence, but this term was in fact used by all communities). Israel has never existed before as a unified state, there was a kingdom of Israel, but it was divided, and there were multiple Jewish kingdoms, not covering exactly the same land. I know your request is highly biased. I try to conciliate all views, but we can't ignore the international status: the regions is internationally named "Palestine", and there are two "states" recognized. The Palestinian authority wants to use exclusively the name "Palestine", but in fact this name is also used by Jewish since long. And formally Israel only exists in its borders of 1948 (the green line of 1967 is just an armistice, not ratified by an international treaty, and in fact ignored by Israel that is still in war witth all its neighbours and still officially does not want any form of peace or coexistence with its own people). verdy_p (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have definitely removed the category from files. I'm just asking you please do not remove the category "old maps of Israel" from files. You can add "old files of Palestine" if you wish. Israel is a country and the country have and old maps just like any other countrise - Category:Old maps of Croatia or Category:Old maps of Jordan etc. -- Geagea (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I've moved them to subcategories by date (years or decennials). Once again you don't look enough, don't provide any evidence that I made something wrong (I may have made an error somewhere, buyt I check many things. If something was forgotten, this can be fixed. But I'm definitely not depleting these categories, I'm filling them as appropriate. Look better! verdy_p (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and many others. -- Geagea (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These moves are appropriate: they are on dates where Israel did not exist. And they are not specific only to Israel but the **whole** Palestine region.

Visibly you want to make overcategorisation (against existing policies and best practices on this wiki: choose the appropriate categories, do not categorize multiple times).

This was not an error at all These are missing for other territories as well that are NOT concerned at all by Israel (and have never been as it did not even exist)! verdy_p (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just explaining you simply. Every country have an old maps. I gave you an examples. That is the way it's working her. Please understand that. -- Geagea (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that. But these maps are still not just for Israel, in fact they are not at all describing Israel itself but the whole Palestine region: all maps (old or not) for Israel are a subcategory of maps for Palestine as a whole. There NO necessity to subcategorize them in all members when the map is not describing Israel alone, but other entities.

So your request is clearly invalid. What you want is ONLY overcategorization. Note that I've NOT moved all maps out of Israel to Palestine: those that describe Israel alone (with weak or no details details for what is around) are still categorized in Israel. Now you want to bring all past contents covering regions that are much larger than today's Israel, to be inside categories of Israel, this is wrong and in fact not even needed (you'll find these all maps in the parent categories). verdy_p (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can add categoris also for Palestine (or any other entity) and the category structure of Israel needed at least for the Hebrew Wikipedia. -- Geagea (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what I'm doing. Because Israel is overrepresented as an exclusive point of view (which is your evident point of view, non neutral), and it obscures the history of all other entities.

And you'll note that I've also added many things for Israel itself, so I'm clearly non neutral: I treat Israel and Palestinian territories equally, and reconcile them also inside Palestine (region) and former entities. verdy_p (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{Geogroup}}[edit]

Hello. After your edit at {{Geogroup}}, it is so ugly when using the parameter level= in it. Please see June 2020 in rail transport in Chiba prefecture, for example. Shall I revert your edit? Or could you please fix it? --トトト (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is ugly? I constrained it to use the same width as infoboxes for small screens, so that it does not obscures the listed categories on the left. If there's any linewrap for a given link, the wraps are indented; the overall size was minimized. Which language do you use, because I don't see anything "ugly" ?

May be I could make some parts unwrappable? verdy_p (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The box used to be vertically slim just as when not using the parameter level=. As a result of your edit, it was vertically extended to the level of ugliness when using the parameter. It has nothing to do with the language, as I use nl as default setting. Please fix it. Since I'am not so familiar with coding, I don't know what “unwrappable/wrappable” means.--トトト (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better for you with the unwrappable sections? Note that this floatting box has to be constrained in width, but broken lines are not easy to separate. (Wrappable is related to linewraps when a tool does not fit alone in the same row).

Note that this box is floatting on the side of other content, if we allow it to enlarge too much, it is the central content of the page which is affected and will go down too frequently. The Wikidata Infobox is also restricted in width for the same reason (and it uses the same width!). verdy_p (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used something else than indentation, such as small vertical margins between each tool. And I've made some parts unwrappable (notably the number of levels so they remain on the same line; this did not exist even before, and liwewraps were not controled). I have tested it in japanese, English, German, French, Russian, and I don't see any problem). verdy_p (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to stir up the issue again, but I preferred the template with a slim vertical height back then. Now it causes a problem like this and this. It pressures {{Prefectures of Japan22}} and destroyed the page layout, which used to be beautiful prior to your edit. Is it not possible to revert it to the edition of 14 April 2020, and creat another template specially designed for infox? Thank you. --トトト (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what is the problem on the Japanese page: that template is exactly the same width as the wikidata infobox that may also be bound there, and would also "push" the prefectured a bit to the left. This prefectures box is not overriden by it, there's no collision. It jsut happens to use a too large vertical margin... verdy_p (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It used to fit above {{Prefectures of Japan22}}, sitting right next to the box <--1 2 3 ...10 11 12-->in March 2020 in Saga prefecture and June 2020 in Fukushima prefecture back then. If you are not aware of the layout problem of these categories now, I have to admit you are not competent enough to edit the template. --トトト (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal judgments is definitely not a good way to cooperate. I am perfectly ware of the other problem that you just don't see...

There 's absoltuely no alignement problem as you say. Things don't necessary fit horizontally as you think on you screen. You're just looking at a single page and even this page shows no problem at all. verdy_p (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidad and Tobago[edit]

Hi Verdy p,
we do not attribute a country to a continent or part of a continent by personal opinion. We use official classifications such as the UN geoscheme. TT is part of the Caribbean. In a binary classification the Caribbean is counted towards North America, in a threepart classification it is still counted towards North America (as the Caribbean is not counted towards Central America), and in a quadripartite classification it is counted towards the Caribbean. This is not an opinion, it is an official classification. The question on which tectonic plate a land mass is located is not of relevance. I will correct that once more now, and if you still value your opinion higher than sources, I need to report the matter.
Kind regards, Grueslayer (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and the UN classifies at in "Latin America" (culturally) and in the "Caribbean" (which includes also Venezuela, culturally and politically). Its main and largest island is located entirely to the south of the nothernmost location of Continental Venezuela. It is also entirely within the continental shelf of South America.

The Caribbean also includes the Guianas region, and Venezuela, and part of Colombia... Once again you are confused by the Antillas and the confusion made by US between the two terms. The UN is not confused.

The UN agrees. You are just confused by a restrictive view of the "Caraibbean" which is not limtied to just the Antillas (which are effectively sorted as part of Northe America, but not even by the UN). Your source is not relevant at all. verdy_p (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Verdy p/archive16

Contents

Edit warring[edit]

Hungarian ToC[edit]

Template:Decade years navbox[edit]

Broken templates due to recent edit in Module:Wikidata label[edit]

Years by ending day of week[edit]

Category:Common_years_by_ending_day_of_week[edit]

Thanks[edit]

Category:La Croix-Rouge (quarter of Marseille)[edit]

Template:Number cat/layout[edit]

Template:RomanCat[edit]

Category:County roads in South Dakota[edit]

Please stop your changes to US county categories[edit]

Another invalid type of change[edit]

File:Large white (Pieris brassicae) underside.jpg[edit]

Edits (Category: Wikimedia sandboxes/tmp)[edit]

Category:Articles containing Hebrew-language text[edit]

[:Category:Categories of Maine by county]][edit]

Was there consensus for this?[edit]

Old maps of Israel[edit]

{{Geogroup}}[edit]

Trinidad and Tobago[edit]

Navigation menu

User talk:Verdy p/archive16

Edit warring[edit]

Hungarian ToC[edit]

Template:Decade years navbox[edit]

Broken templates due to recent edit in Module:Wikidata label[edit]

Years by ending day of week[edit]

Category:Common_years_by_ending_day_of_week[edit]

Thanks[edit]

Category:La Croix-Rouge (quarter of Marseille)[edit]

Template:Number cat/layout[edit]

Template:RomanCat[edit]

Category:County roads in South Dakota[edit]

Please stop your changes to US county categories[edit]

Another invalid type of change[edit]

File:Large white (Pieris brassicae) underside.jpg[edit]

Edits (Category: Wikimedia sandboxes/tmp)[edit]

Category:Articles containing Hebrew-language text[edit]

[:Category:Categories of Maine by county]][edit]

Was there consensus for this?[edit]

Old maps of Israel[edit]

{{Geogroup}}[edit]

Trinidad and Tobago[edit]

Navigation menu

Search