User talk:Verdy p/archive5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Can you please update File:World_map_of_travel_%26_residence_restrictions_against_people_with_HIV_AIDS.png to reflect the recent HIV ban lift. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8438865.stm --Aizuku (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at that update - Thanks for pointing this. verdy_p (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did know this news since months, however I had forgotten this image since it was created in 2006. I've recolored the US and removed the note.
Anyway, it should probably updated more, because there has certainly been some changes since then (most probably in Africa, with new bans against HIV/AIDS and homosexuality, because unfortunately, they are legally linked, despite most of the damages is heterosexual, notably via rapes of women and young girls, in poor countries. I would prefer to refer to the ILGA report, from which the image was built, but their site ([1]) is currently down, so I can't check which country needs updating, and anyway, the image should probably now adopt the SVG format which is easier to update more precisely using a simple text editor, to edit its CSS. verdy_p (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Verdy p, I don't have any information on how the image was created. I simply found the image and uploaded it to the commons. A retouched version with reduced noise has been created, there is a link to it on the original image page. The author of the image is in the credit section. The only information I have is the info from the source website. Originalwana (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've rolled you back, as you accidentally broke PotD. A couple notes

1. I believe it only takes two to three more #ifexists in Template:Potd/DaySetup to go over the limit. 1-2 if you put them in Template:Motd/DaySetup too 2. We're somewhat near the maximum transclusion size. DaySetup counts 30 times for itself, plus, I believe it counts again in Template:Potd/Month, for a total of 60 times. Keep lengthy comments and commented out functions out of it.

As such, don't try to get too fancy in these templates, and if you want to do comments, keep them short, and put any additional material on the template's talk page. We just don't have the allocations.

I appreciate your attempts to help, but, quite simply, these are used so many times that they need to be kept as simple and short as possible. Otherwise, we put ourselves in really awkward positions. As it stands, I'm seriously trying to figure if we can get away with hard-coding more features in Template:Potd/Month, because I'm worried about the statsistics.

No offense intended. The idea's good, it's just not practical to do unless we take PotD setup to the toolserver instead of the wiki.

Are you any good at Javascript? Adding some code to the common Javascript repositiry would probably work better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this occured despite I had tested it on my own MediaWiki server.
Seriously, Commons has been specially tweaked ni a way that it no longer reflects what there's in the current MediaWiki main branch, adn some of these tweaks made on Commons have seriously impacted its performance, and even caused some stupid limits to become active again (despite this was corrected many months ago).
I really thinks that Commons is now late in its instalaltion of MediaWiki, and is stupidly exposed to problems that should have not occured at all for this page.
This is strange because before submitting the first change, Commons accepted my own tests without problem... until I commited.
Then only I saw that it was impacted by an unbelievable limit, but this is not caused by #ifexist tests, but by an unbelievable limit on transclusion size (which is wrong, incorrectly computed in this installed version of MediaWiki, where theres really a bug, that I can't reproduce on my own MediaWiki server, which also has a dump of Commons installed for the same pages and templates.
And the size of comments should not ever affect the performance, if this was the true MediaWiki software, and not a special and broken local tweak: this version still use the very old parser, probably beacuse of the way it wants to manage the specific cache that is shared across WM servers.
No, Javascript will not be a solution. And the current situation, where some languages are exposed and some are not even, despite they really have translations, is really bad.
If you read the comments I made, a #ifexist on a page should NEVER cost anything more on the server than just displaying a link unconditionnally without testing if the page really exists (notably because the server will still need to check for existence, in order to decide how to render the link in blue or red, with a view or edit action in the generated URL). The list of pages referenced by a page when it is parsed and cached will also not depend on it, and the MediaWiki code already tests this existence only once per viewed page.
I had made nothing wrong, I also wanted to correct it, but revertnig the #if tests, but this did not even change the bug.
The only true limit that is occuring is not caused by this bug, but by the fast that the main POTD page transcludes a giant template, instead of transcluding small ones. Given that the main POTD page is specialized for each language, it is simply stupid to include the same translations (so many in fact) on all these specializations.
This is the design that was initially broken.
Anyway one simple way of solving it would be that the main POTD does not attempt to transclude a full month, but to tranclude each day separately.
I really did not want to affect the server, this was unexpected. There's a bug but really this is due to Commons itself (and not even to the released MediaWiki software), probably because of lack of system maintenance. verdy_p (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thereason it includes all these languages is because that page is used for translations. As for Commons and MediaWiki: I think Commons is about 6 months to a year behind with updates, and I honestly don't know why. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for readding what could be added: I had to act fairly quickly, because PotD's translation page was down, and then I was having trouble spotting what could be readded given the amount of other stuff that had to be reverted. I agree it's an annoying situgation, and don't see how #ifexist is such a high-cost parserfunction. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commons behaves differently from other Wikipedias. Visibly it is quite late, and still does not have the correct version of the new parser : it still counts HTML comments as part of the included size, despite they should be eliminated immediately. Also the number if #ifexist is incorrectly counted (they are parsed several times, through each recursive transclusion. Really this version here lacks the lazy recursive evaluation that has proven to be so successful and fast, as well as allowing enormous amounts of memory savings. Commons is definitely broken and underadministrated (it has been tweaked specifically, and now the MediaWiki developers have difficulties to maintain it in parallel with the latest software, or they have introduced specific tweaks in the code, which really don't seem to work as expected.
All behaves here as if this was the very old parser that was used of Wikipedia 3 years ago...
There's a soltuion however
  • the POTD and MOTD pages should not attempt to display all languages, just the specified language and a reference language (specified in each image, default would be English if not specified).
  • All languages should be treated equal. Note that each POTD and MOTD page should be already localized, including its headers, so there's no difficulty to select the appropriate language, and then just a few other source languages for translations (this should not be something more than those 10 majors languages displayed in the root page of www.Wikipedia.org). If an image or media is already translated, no need to display more than just one to five others (English, French, German, Russian, Chinese) : each loaclized version of POTD and MOTD page will list only those that are appropriate as a source for translation in their local native language.
  • You should absolutely NOT transclude a etmplate for the full month: it really explodes the ressources. It would be simpler transclude each day in the month separately (using a fixed code enumerating all days between 01 and 31 with a day parameter : the template will just display something if there's an image/media template for that day, i.e. if the day exists in that month : no need to test a page existence, just test the date itself).
  • The template that generates a full month should be deprecated immediately: it will explode at any time without notice, if there are enough languages for which there are complete descriptions with links and markup. Dropping a language arbitrarily is really not a good solution.
verdy_p (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how the template is used: This is for a translation project;

YES, I know that ! But each target language has its own dedicated page, where it won't be relevant to have ALL languages for ALL days in the same month. Just a few source languages will be needed, and only one target. To translate into another one, go to the other translation project for that target language.

as such, we need to allow multilingual speakers to translate into as many languages as they speak, and use extant translations to know what to translate..

It would be impractical to have anything less than a month, since it's necessary to be able to scan, fairly quickly, through and find out where things can be added, or gaps are found. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this cannot work due to the size of the ressources themselves : the decriptions can be fairly long, and the way the template contents and reincluded recursively, multiplies severely their size: 31 days times 20 translations will result into 620 target templates, all of which may be about 1.5 KB (But with the additional markup they become around 5KB each). So the total would be about 6.5 MB, and this total will be multiplied at each recursion level of templates (each recursion in fact is counted as a power of 2, and with 4 levels of recursion, they count about 16 times, for a total reaching 104 MB, not counting the rest of the code like the additional formatting for days in the calendar, the tables and lists of languages and language names...).
And this is only a rough estimate for 20 languages only (this implies that good descriptions of images will need to be restricted a lot if we want more languages (think this is a bad goal to restrict the description sizes). People will complain that their language can't be supported.
There's no way to have it work in a template to display a full month, the space will always be exhausted. That's why the list of languages needs to be restricted (and instead used selectively accoriding to the target language). Displaying all on the same page is the main cause of the problem. verdy_p (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible alternative : handle the project per week, instead of per month... This will divide the sizes by 4, and it will still be fairly fast enough. verdy_p (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another note: even with the current code, the post-include size is nearly reaching the 2MB limit (currently 1.8 MB for this month, and all translations are not there...) which will be exhausted anyway if all POTD and MOTD are translated in the proposed languages). The page exploded when you merged both the MOTD and POTD in the same month calendar.
You have also inserted the month calender header within the new merged month template. This was not the case before, and should have remained outside, as a separate template invoked directly (without recursion). (I had to correct this in the French COM:POTD page, because the calender and the refresh link was generated twice, after you just renamed the month template to display POTD and MOTD projects together).
I really suggest that you put as much as possible out from the new merged MOTD and POTD month template, even if this means that each translated project page will need to add a few lines (like they were before the merge, when just displaying POTD's).
If you really want both POTD and MOTD being translated from the same page, please split the month in at least 3 or 4 parts (10/11 days or 7/8 days), displayed on separate pages, and make again the header outside of the merged POTD and MOTD month template. verdy_p (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

template Motd layout[edit]

Hi, I reverted your edits in Template:Motd/2010-06-02 (en). You should use {{Motd description}} for caption in order to mantain more simple the syntax in the page and a standardized layout (like POTD) avoiding to force the use of the wiki markup directly in the page (noinclude, horizontal lines etc..). I see you have modified {{Motd description helper}} too; I think the double caption, that is used from a long time in POTD, is useful and more clear than yours. Could you restore the previous version, please? Nanae (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potd[edit]

I've got Commons:Potd down to 1.65 megabytes. If it starts creeping up any higher again, I'll cut the secondary language list and direct people to new templates for the full PotD language lists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Euro coins (Malta) has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. 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 deletion 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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the uploader of these images anyway. I just created the category to sort these images, and helping the resolution of their applicable licences.
You have tagged too many images, and reopened a question that was highly discussed and closed in 2007.
And the ECB was questioned, and Commons received absolutely no mandatry request. If there's a problem, the ECB can apply its own procedures and claim their rights at will.
You are acting prematurely for what is really not a problem. The possible challenges are on the kind of modifications that are permitted, but this is reagulated by law, not by the licences themselves, and legal restrictions are not a problem to challenge what is free or not (only the terms of the private licence, not the public laws, could be challenged to claim it is not free).
verdy_p (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T'as du faire une fausse manip, ça ne ressemble plus à rien...

Gonioul (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]