User talk:Frankthetankk

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Creating redirect pages

Hi, preferably don't create pages just for the sake of creating a redirect. Cheers --Jgpacker (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Map Features:amenity

In this edit Template:Map Features:amenity you deleted nightclub and duplicated fountain. Please can you fix. Thanks. --Oligo (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edits on Tag pages

Hello Frankthetankk, I've noticed several problems with your recent edit to tag description pages.
Most importantly, you have copied content from Wikipedia to our wiki. Unless you have written these Wikipedia articles yourself, this constitutes a copyright violation. This type of content is also not very useful, because a page about sport=archery, for example, should be about theo tag, not about archery.
There are also some minor additional issues: You have added a "Description" header above the first paragraph of several pages and onClosedWay parameters to their infobox templates, including here where I had just removed them. The onClosedWay parameter no longer exists (it has no effect), and the first paragraph should not have a heading according to our formatting guidelines.
I hope we can resolve these issues together. --Tordanik 14:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tordanik, Thanks for bringing these to my attention. I will look over these again for adjustments. As far as the onClosedWay, I was just copy/pasting the Template:ValueDescription --Frankthetankk 16:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems you keep doing edits like these. So I'm sorry, but I have to get a bit more explicit: You must not copy texts from Wikipedia like you do, it's illegal. And you need to be extremely careful when changing the definition of established tags such as the ancient amenity=bar or amenity=cafe and so on. People have been discussing the precise meaning of these tags for a decade, and often a single sentence can be important for the exact definition. Changing a ton of definitions in one go is certainly not acceptable. And finally, don't overdo the wikipedia icons and links. Wikipedia links in the "See also" sections may be helpful, but what Wikipedia writes has little to do with what the tag in OSM means, so it is simply not so important that each two-sentence definition needs to have a Wikipedia icon in front.
I'm therefore reverting your changes to the amenity map features template. Again, I'm sorry, because there are purely formatting changes mixed in there. But with your rapid pace of changes, I cannot easily identify them. --Tordanik 17:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I made sure not to copy wikipedia text. I used my own writing to fix the grammar. While comparing what is already written on each tag page.
Furthermore, I did not Change' definitions at all, as you stated. I used information gather from the tag pages.
Ok, I was fooled because some of the texts read rather similar to the wikipedia intros, but are not identical. So I wrongly accused you of copying these pages. :(
I'm still somewhat uncomfortable with the large amount of undiscussed changes. Can you describe your process of gathering information? --Tordanik 18:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I am just trying to read and update pages that seems to be old data to be current with what is already written and/or established. I'm not looking to change definitions, just make it easier to read and find information for mapping users ranging from all types. While editing I am keeping in mind the quote from the guidelines that state, "Aim your writing at the level of children and grandmothers!". After viewing history's of pages, I figured it'd be already discussed and established if it was already written on the tag pages for a long period of time. Although I do understand that is a wiki edited by anyone. Many users refer to these wiki pages for clarifying what they are about to tag in OSM, I feel that since the wiki is one of the main sources to find clarification for given tags that the data needs to be current and updated among all the many different places of describing a given tag.
My process is simple. I read and compare what is already written on the map template to what is missing on the tag pages that is important to the feature in question that hasn't been updated in months to years on the template, by viewing the wiki history as a source. On the tag pages I use taginfo to check for the data that is described on both the template and tagpage. I then take my time using the overpass scripts in ways to scan most of the world looking for any more inaccuracies. I've read a lot of past mailing lists archives as well, but I dont usually cite this as a source unless I can find where its official but that has been rare. I then read the description on the tag page itself along with the description in the valuedescription. Comparing all this data I'll then check the grammar on the template, which most of the templates are in bad grammar. Being as simple as I possibly can without changing the definitions by different wording I then updated the template. If there is already a wiki page linked someplace I'll use that as a link if its still an appropriate fit within the descriptions.
The wiki links and icons are from the template wikiIcons, which automatically changes links for whichever language the page is currently on, which sounds very useful since the templates are already linked to different language pages. The icon is just a indication that its a wikipedia article. It easier on the eyes and looks cleaner this way to me but I can feel how it may also be useful towards the end of a description, as a see also. --Frankthetankk (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but some of your changes do in fact change the meaning a lot, and I wonder how that is possible with your extensive research. For example (not a tag page, but a Map Features template), you changed the description of amenity=drinking_water from "A place to obtain potable water to drink." to "Drinking water or Potable water is a place where humans can obtain potable water for use. Typically the water is used for only drinking. Other uses of the water may include toilet flushing, washing and landscape irrigation.". That's a decent description of drinking water, but doesn't fit with amenity=drinking_water. Toilets, landscape irrigation and so on are not mapped with this tag.
As for the wikipedia links: They should usually not prominently feature in a definition, because not only do they not 1:1 fit the meaning of the tag (e.g. the Wikipedia link in the drinking_water example, which has not much to do with the meaning of the tag), it could also change at any time. --Tordanik 23:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
About the drinking water. I understand what you're saying. I wasn't necessarily trying to change the meaning. I used the definition that was used on the drinking water tag page that is very similar. I just reworded it so that it'd fit smaller and it'd have the same meaning as I copied it. Now that you're brought this to my attention of what you consider the meaning of amenity=drinking_water really is, perhaps, the definition that I used on its tagpage may have been lifted from wikipedia and not an official meaning. I apologize if I made a mistake. As per my userpage on this wiki, my goal is to update information on the wiki where I see that it may be missing while fixing the numerous spelling/grammar mistakes. I dont want to change it, I just want the information that's available normalized across all spectrums as many pages seem very outdated with conflicting data.
The Wiki links. When you say that usually they should not be in the the definition. When is it appropriate to have this in the definition? Do you have some examples in mind with the links included you can direct me too? I am curious to see. Is it better to have a "see also" at the end? I'd like to work with you while I work on this project. Do you have any suggestions for me or an area I may help edit?
Something I've noticed since becoming an editor on this wiki. I've read the wiki guidelines and help pages here many times and I'm fairly certain of what to do and what not to do from these pages. I feel a bit part is missing from the wiki help is examples, especially formatting examples. As I have been making edits where I see fit along the way, my edits usually always become questioned as to why or even reverted without any discussion. I'm not saying that my edits are always right, cause I make mistakes too. What I'm saying is, when my edits become questioned, its usually towards the topic of bad/unneeded formating, too many pictures or too big, headers when and where to use um, etc.. I feel that there needs some examples of a perfectly tag/key page as per the guidelines or even a section of a page like a header that can be shown as an example on how to build a key/tag page. I feel that if I had some example pages with formatting on how the wiki admins prefer how pages should be formated almost like template. Not that huge of a deal but something I noticed, hope that made sense. thanks. =) --Frankthetankk (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Some examples for well done wiki pages could indeed be helpful. I'm not aware that such a collection currently exists. One possible difficulty with this idea may be that such pages really should be adapted to the tag in question: Some are complex enough to need "how to map" and examples, others aren't. Some need additional images to help the reader understand what the tag should be used for. Some need a list of common errors, others have no history of incorrect use. So while there are common elements on many tag pages which I agree would deserve to be documented, each one is ultimately unique.
Regarding the Wikipedia links, there is no firm guideline, but we can look at common practice as a guide. There used to be Wikipedia links in the standard infobox templates, which were intentionally removed because they incorrectly suggested that the tag's definition is based on the content of that Wikipedia page. So Wikipedia links should certainly not be used by default, but only in situations where they are particularly helpful. I consider the traffic_sign documentation one such example.
With all the criticism, I want to point out that you are doing a lot of good work, too - it's just that people often only speak up if they disagree with something. To reduce future conflicts, I would recommend the following: Avoid "sideways" changes that don't really make things better, just different. And when you start a task that will span many pages and be hard and costly to undo (such as your redesign of the map features template), consider starting a discussion first. --Tordanik 08:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Creating translation page without a translation

Why did you do this and this ? How does that helps anyone? --Jgpacker (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I was cleaning up category for English Tags. Those pages kept appearing incorrectly in an En Category. There was two {{ValueDescription}} on the same Page. This isnt a very useful location. Also, Because its to make it's own Tag page, but most importantly that it looks the same as the english page Key:generator:method. I copied the style of the English format to the same translation pages. This fixed my cleanup and made the created pages consistent between languages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankthetankk (talkcontribs)
I'm sorry, I didn't understand. These pages (Pt-br:Key:generator:method and Ja:Key:generator:method) that didn't exist before you created them, were appearing in a category? --Jgpacker (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
no no. Sorry I meant Pt-br:Tag:power=generator was in an English Tag Category, see here. I attempted to fix it by removing the reference. Reference has a {{ValueDescription |lang=en}}. I suppose another fix to keep the table on the page would be to move the <noinclude> and add a {{Description}}. Frankthetankk (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I understand that reference was added in a way that put the portuguese page power=generator on the wrong category, but I don't understand why you created the pages Pt-br:Key:generator:method and Ja:Key:generator:method, given that they should only exist when there is a translation for them. --Jgpacker (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Um, I think I did so thinking, since it was english table on a different languages page already that might as well move it to its own page, similar to the English style already in place. Thinking about it, I should not have created the translation pages and copy/pasted without translating the material, Sorry. I thought it would be fine since it was already in English to begin with.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankthetankk (talkcontribs)
The portuguese page power=generator did indeed have some english content, but that's because it's translation was not completed yet (it did have portuguese content). It seems the page Ja:Key:generator:method was translated just now, and I made some edits to Pt-br:Key:generator:method so it doesn't have english content, so all is fine now :-) --Jgpacker (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
That is a relief I didn't screw up too big. One problem now is I think you removed the template by mistake, the page is now blank. --Frankthetankk (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, I was the one that removed the template from the portuguese page. I will re-add it when I have time to translate it.--Jgpacker (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki pages addition

Hi Frankthetankk, it seems you are overthinking the additions on some wiki pages (mainly the sport=* tags).
No need to link every single thing to an Wikipedia or OSM page.
Too many images. Images are good, but you should just choose a few so the user quickly understands the concept. Otherwise the page gets crowded
Don't add sections for "Proposal", "Rendering", "Footnotes" and etcetera when there is nothing to be said there. They can always be created when needed.
No need to add a related terms list when the only related term is the term itself (e.g. don't add "chess" as a related term to "chess"). They are good otherwise
I simplified two sport=* tag pages so you can have a better idea. See here and here.
Overall, you should try to keep it simpler, like I said you are overthinking the content on these pages.
I hope I'm not being too harsh on you. We appreciate your efforts, and hope you are not discouraged by this. We all have been beginners at this wiki before.
--Jgpacker (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

no problem at all. I like the feedback. I have been looking at many other pages and using those as examples before I applied it to many unfinished sport pages. I see what you mean by related list, I was copying others examples, many of the pages I viewed are the same way.
What if the images gallery was made smaller to fit more images? How many images is too many? I would feel better if I could add one or two more photos on those pages to better visualise the sport in question.
I understand by too many links. I feel a couple links should be re-added. Would you mind if I tried to touch it up slightly? Frankthetankk (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, you can re-add some links if you feel they are useful, but try to restrict the ammount of wikipedia links (they usually aren't useful for mappers reading the documentation).
There is no hard limit in the ammount of images, but making them smaller would indeed help. As a thumb of rule, try not to add an image if a previous image already did a fine job showing the same thing.
--Jgpacker (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
About the related terms. Reading the example here RelatedTerms and here points to viewing of Tag:amenity=place_of_worship, even this page has a {{RelatedTerm|place of worship}}. Are you absolutely sure about the similar terms? Because I've seen many pages like this already. Thanks --Frankthetankk (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I find it a little odd to add only the term that's in the title, but indeed these pages say it's ok. I guess I was wrong then, go for it. --Jgpacker (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. I find it odd to add the title. I didn't find the quote where it says that it's OK, but I didn't find where it says not too. Was just double checking. Thanks --Frankthetankk (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Template spacing and ValueDescription lang=en

Why were you adding unnecessary spacing in the KeyDescription template parameters of this page ? I know it's common for people to add them when copying them from Template:KeyDescription, and it's not exactly a problem, but I don't think it's better to make them that way (it only looks good on a monospace font, which is the exception here). Also, some parameters are very rare to use, so no need to keep them all :-) . --Jgpacker (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont use KeyDescription I use ValveDescription. Your edit link is wrong too. The spaces dont render so it doesnt matter where they are. I copied the templates, and the examples listed even have the spaces. Even Tordanik edited it and cleaned it up for me the other week. So I take that as official use, its what a "template" means. It's easier to read for editors also.
If its not a problem then why did you change it?
also I dont approve of you removing the | lang = en, that one is important while linking on other languages. Nearly all the untranslated language pages with tags have this. --Frankthetankk (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Also with the spacing, I use monospace font while editing sometimes. It shouldn't matter either way. You stated that you "don't think it's better", just because you don't think it looks better one way doesn't mean that others may feel differently that it looks better in a different way. Thats why they use the templates with examples to use.
About the unused parameters, thats fine to remove them if they have no values. But please don't remove parameters with values in them such as "lang = en". Thanks :) --Frankthetankk (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed the link. I was removing the additional parameters too, so I removed the spacing together. The way I see it is the opposite: it's worse to read it when it's badly aligned. The web editor's font isn't monospace, and that's what almost everyone use, so it should be prioritized. They usually are added because people copy them from the template page, so it would be too much to ask people to remove the spacing, but I don't think they should be added.
As far as I saw, the parameter "lang=en" can be safely omitted, because the template already knows the language from the page prefix (i.e. it's redundant in 99% of cases) since the recent {{Description}} template unification of languages.
--Jgpacker (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess this is difference of opinions. It's no problem to me what we use, I don't care either way, I am just following examples, and other peoples work that's been dated 6 months+ old. I am going to continue to follow the templates as those are official documents laid out by admins for editors to use, and I cant find any information about the "spacing" or to remove the spacing. I feel its easier to read/editor for first time readers/editors/mappers that want to contribute that don't know any coding. I understand you feel differently which is fine, but I wont change until I found more facts, data or documents that contradict the official templates/examples. I want to be humble and work together. I don't want any editing wars. My goal is to update the wiki with missing data, while fixing English for native speakers.
I am interested in the parameter "lang=en", I cant find any more information about what you're describing. Please elaborate more, I am curious why this is not needed. I would like to stop using it if possible. I'll have to look around but I remember messing around with a couple pages of different languages about this very parameter. Thanks --Frankthetankk (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
About the parameter "lang". It was used before, but recently the Description templates had their language variants unified into one (before there was DE:KeyDescription, Pt-br:KeyDescription, and so on, even for ValueDescription), and then they added some template magic to figure out the language from the page's prefix(but it only automatically detects the language when the parameter isn't specified). The parameter "lang" isn't exactly bad, but it's redundant. The only bad thing about it is that people may copy the whole page to translate and inadvertently not change this value, wrongly specifying that page's language, which was the error you were fixing. And yes, even without "lang=en", the page still goes to the same categories as with the parameter. --Jgpacker (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah I see, that is very useful. I did not know about this. Thanks for explaining. Do you mind telling me how you figured this out exactly? Any links? I'd like to learn. Also you said it was "used before", do you remember when or how long ago this was? This will help me in my process of editing. I was going to ask about the categories, that's good to know as well.
Since you said "that people may copy the whole page to translate and inadvertently not change this value, wrongly specifying that page's language". Dont you think we should then instead leave "lang=" in without any values? In the case that someone copies the page the parameter will still be there, in the hopes that the said person may notice the error and change the value to correct it, or perhaps the next person will see and change the value without having the user to understand how templates work and where to find the documentation. I feel this may lead to less errors in the future. That is why the template is there. --Frankthetankk (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I only know about the description templates unification because I was already editing the wiki during that time, and all the *Description variants were replaced by the unified one, so I can't say a lot about it. Fortunately this was well-documented here. As far as I can understand, the following code on the templates {{KeyDescription}} and {{ValueDescription}} is what automatically recognizes the language by the page's prefix, if the parameter lang isn't specified | lang = {{#if:{{{lang|}}}|{{{lang}}}|{{langcode}}}} . The parameter "lang=" doesn't seem necessary for pages in another language either. As far as I can guess, the parameter "lang=" would only be used in case the key/tag page is in a non-english language, but using no prefix in it's name or a similar case. I will ask in the template talk page to be sure. --Jgpacker (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User Page Links / OSM Subdomains

I saw you have a list of OSM Subdomains in your user page. I believe doen't exist anymore, since Osmarender was taken down. One missing subdomain is --Jgpacker (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Thank you for helping me, I appreciate it. I will look into that. I basically just copied that section from somewhere and haven't had a chance to review it yet.
No problem. By the way, your OSM user link points to a non-existent profile. --Jgpacker (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I fixed it. Apparently it didn't like the first capital letter. --Frankthetankk (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi, The page Tag:amenity=post_box was on my watchlist, so I saw you just made some changes there. You said you changed the template's picture to a post box used in an english-speaking country, but the previous image was a british post box (personally I don't care which image is being shown, just wanted to point this out). Also, could you rework the page initial description a little? I think it may be a little bit confusing right now. Cheers--Jgpacker (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jgpacker. You do have a point about the image. I suppose I didn't have to change it. I wasn't thinking it was already in a english-speaking country. We can change it back if you feel that's more appropriate. I don't care which image is being shown too. The images in the gallery I feel is what's important for the time being.
Yeah I'll work on the introduction. I wrote it when I should've been sleeping. I was trying to keep the same wording so I wouldn't get accused of changing the meaning. =) --Frankthetankk (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Nah, personally I don't care what the image is in that page (I just thought the reason wasn't correct). I think the new image is also appropriate. --Jgpacker (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Translation of english text

Sorry, I did it again. Thanks for your correcting me. How can we put the original English text back ? I'm a newbie. Jan vH

Map Features Template

Hi, about the description of tags on the Map Features template: I saw recently you have been trying to make the information on the map features template more self-contained and complete in the shortest way possible, which consequently may make it more information-dense. That may just be my opinion, but the way I see the map features page, it's supposed to be skimmed rather than read. So it should be only using simple words (so even non-native english speakers can easily understand it) and relatively short (similar to the description on the Key/ValueDescription template), with the addition of some links to similar or closely related tags. I never saw a discussion on how that page should be like, but that's my current opinion. --Jgpacker (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, While I agree the template description should be short so that the user is able to find what they're looking for, I feel it is important to inform the user any of the frequency used information that could be relevant. Keeping in mind that not everyone will read further by clicking on the specific tag-pages. An outline I follow is listing the mandatory description, then I'll list if there is any frequency used tags that are suppose to or may be used in combination with and/or around the tag, and lastly if there is any of the most common places to find the tag in question. Since these templates seem like a popular area on the wiki to find what the user is looking for, I feel it needs to contain the most important information about the tag in-question so that the user can quickly find the information they're searching for. For example while on the Map Features page a user could do a word search (ctrl + f) to find whatever they're looking for.
I will most likely will not list all these for each tag, but if I find important information that is common and that will benefit OSM I will try to include it. At the same time educating them if there is any do's and don't's, but more importantly directing a user to see also similar tags if they're unsure.
Other than the Sports template cause I know that part needs to be copyedited and shortened. I'm not sure what you mean by simple words, do you have an example? Also the valuedescription says just that a "description", the map template header says "comment" which leaves this open to nearly anything relevant.
About the non-english part, isn't this the reason why the wiki has a translation wikiproject for each template. Since I'm editing an English page it should be implied that English readers will see it. I'm not sure I understand your point here.
Given I do make mistakes and there is always room for improvements. Thanks for working with me and bringing this to my attention. While I agree with your opinions, I'm not sure I fully understand your concern. Can you give me some examples? Thanks --Frankthetankk (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)