496
edits
Talk:Wiki: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Deprecated vs. obsolete tags: new section
Minh Nguyen (talk | contribs) (→TemplateStyles Extension: Support) |
(→Deprecated vs. obsolete tags: new section) |
||
|
:{{ping|Chris2map}} I think this statement is based on Creative Commons's determination that [https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility:_GPLv3 CC BY-SA is compatible the GPL but not vice versa], and no such determination exists for the GFDL. One mitigating factor is that [[c:Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/08#No longer allow GFDL for some new uploads|Wikimedia Commons has banned new GFDL-licensed images]] since 2018. However, I'm not sure if these considerations about license compatibility are relevant for most situations where we would use these images. Other wikis like Wikipedia have always interpreted each article as a separate work, and indeed each image embedded in each article as a separate work, following standard academic and journalistic practice. Just think of all the news articles you've read that include a CC BY-SA-licensed image, with attribution but without turning the whole news site into free content. This depends on creating a clear delineation between the article text and the image and clear access to the full attribution. So you definitely can't sprinkle GFDL-licensed emoji images within an article's text, for example. Anyhow, you might want a more informed take from the LWG before reworking the page. – [[User:Minh Nguyen|Minh <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Nguyễn</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Minh Nguyen|<span style="display: inline-block;">💬</span>]]</sup> 21:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
== Deprecated vs. obsolete tags ==
[[Key:gay]] has been recently made obsolete by a community vote and instances replaced with [[key:lgbtq]]. So this is no more, and it has been placed in [[:Category:Key descriptions with status "obsolete"]]. So far, so good. However, when you open the page, you have to read it ''very'' carefully to understand this.
In theory, ''obsolete'' map features are those which have been deleted and may not be used anymore, while ''deprecated'' features have a weaker prohibition, as spelled out in [[:Template:Deprecated]]. However, [[:Template:Deprecated]] glaringly shows a warning on the top of the page, but it is absent from [[Key:gay]], which on first glance looks like a regular Wiki page for a common tag.
I wish we would treat deprecated and obsolete tag wiki pages with more consistency, featuring one or more:
#A glaring template such as [[:Template:Deprecated]] on both; an argument such as <nowiki>{{Deprecated|obsolete=yes}}</nowiki> could be added to expand the usage to obsolete features as well. Or create a new [[:Template:Obsolete]]?
#Make the prohibition of usage at [[:Template:Deprecated]] stronger. Currently it reads "''You are still free to continue to use or interpret this tag as you see fit since OpenStreetMap does not have “banned features”. Under no circumstances should you (semi-)automatically change “deprecated” tags to something else ''", which is very permissive, and basically reads "but you may defy community decision as you see fit if you feel strongly about it". At least for positively obsolete features, this should be omitted (and I wish we had a stronger language for deprecated ones as well).
Thoughts? [[User:Duja|Duja]] ([[User talk:Duja|talk]]) 10:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
| |||