Proposal talk:Social media contact prefix
Youtube
You are bound to have some disagreements over "approving" contact:youtube=*, and deprecating youtube=*. It is mainly a video service. Although I agree with the former (channel surely has a community section, and video comments; compared to contact:website=*, not necessary having and for a page where messages or contact forms can be submitted), you are better off leaving this tagging out in the proposal, similar to what your handling of flickr=*. ---- Kovposch (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, and it also happens with others; i.e. while it might be possible, I've never seen Instagram used as a way to contact publisher; it is mostly used to consume media produced by publisher (and possibly commenting with other users; depending on the publisher). Some are safe, though (like "telegram" or "whatsapp" are probably almost always intended as a means of establishing contact with owner) --mnalis (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- You are right it seems like it would be too controversial and undermine the more legitimate reasons for unifing the rest of the more popular social media tagging. I will leave it out of this proposal, it can be a debate for someone else's proposal. --Mxdanger (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Is "contact:*" really only for contact?
I've always used it in the meaning of "presence:", eg "contact:youtube=*" is where that website has it's youtube channel where they publish their videos, and not necessarily have comments enabled or any other means of contacting them. More controversial perhaps, I often did the same with "contact:facebook=*" - used it to mark their facebook page, even if many use it as "publish-news-only" (often via automated apps instead of having someone reading and posting stuff manually) instead of bidirectional channel (where user could contact the owner). I've used it as JOSM preset saves that "contact:facebook" tag as an only option when I searched its presets and type "facebook" (same as youtube, instagram etc).
BTW JOSM still calls that "contact:" prefix tags as "Annotation/social networks" (and not as "ways to contact someone") which made sense for marking pages in that way. Had it asked me to specify whether that facebook page is for contact, or only for publishing read-only information, I would had done so, but it didn't, so at last half or more of my edits are meant to be facebook=* (which I didn't even now existed/had different meaning) instead of contact:facebook=*. Or probably safer to assume all of them if I understand it correctly (i.e. if contact:facebook=* is always a subset of facebook=*?)
And I guess I'm not the only JOSM user with that issue; so probably many of such contact:facebook=* should be mass-downgraded to facebook=* if "contact only" meaning of "Contact:" prefix is to be maintained without such corrupt data. I've not checked how iD and other editors present it, but some of them might also be similarly conflicted. Also, wiki history reveals that "it is used for contacting" part was not in definition of those pages from beginning, but was added some time later, when users might have already learned/used previous definition e.g. like historical contact:facebook. Such retroactive tag meaning reassignment always spells trouble in the future (like now).
In addition, some of the subkeys (like contact:webcam=* make no sense if that "contact:" prefix is really taken to mean only as means of contacting owner. What would one do, visit an contact:webcam URL, guess a location which it is recording, and go stand/jump there with a sign saying "call me at xxxx" in order to establish contact? --mnalis (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Key:contact:facebook has "It must be an official way of contacting." in bold on top, without clarification. For a clear definition and usage, Key:contact#Mail_address lists out Proposed features/House numbers/Bremen Schema using contact:*=* in lieu of addr:*=* for correspondence addresses. To compare, Key:website#Usability has some advice on how are website=* and contact:*=* used.
- Some businesses or services might even have multiple SNS accounts to specifically handle help or support for customers (ie direct public tweets, or dedicated to private messages); separate from the main social media of the PoI itself for publishing content, updates, and promotions.
- I personally use contact:website=* to directly link to an actual page where you can communicate for convenience. That's only me. --- --- Kovposch (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- contact:webcam=* is more of hack when there's only camera:features=webcam without webcam=* to allow for webcam:*=* prefixing in Proposed_features/Extended_tags_for_Key:Surveillance#Camera. I disagree with the conclusion in Talk:Proposed_features/Extended_tags_for_Key:Surveillance#contact:webcam_for_url_to_publicly_viewable_camera_footage_(was:_camera:url). camera:url=* is clearly preferable.
- Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance#Discussion mentioned website:webcam=*. But feeds are usually not a "website" or part of one (not to mention this format of suffixing); and "webcam" sounds redundant.
- In fact, man_made=surveillance has ~2,2k (1.48%) with website=* directly. There are some tens of webcam=* and url:webcam=* (a few webcam:url=* too). --- Kovposch (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- enshrining `contact:youtube` as preferred tagging seems weird to me given that youtube is rarely used for contact. Note that most of this tags here were mass added including in many (most?) cases by rocketdata Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps at a later date a proposal can be made that makes it very specifc that `contact:youtube` is for linkinng to channels and `youtube` would be for linking YouTube vidoes, such as offical tour vidoes of important landmarks or audio description vidoes. However, for now I will leave it out of this proposal. --Mxdanger (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)