Template talk:Proposal Page

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Categories for Proposed features

User Xxzme changed the names of the categories to Proposals with "..." status. I would propose to change them to Proposals with status "..." or Proposed features with status "...". Though I am not a native English speaker either, it sounds more natural and fluent to me. —M!dgard [ talk ] 12:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it does sound better, but I don't think it makes a huge difference? Interestingly enough, it also seems that the server has stopped updating the categories when he was banned.. leaving part of the pages in the old Proposed features "..." categories until now.

Proposal process link

Just a suggestion -- the proposal template ought to somehow have a link to Proposal process. Many users only become aware of proposals as a result of seeing a link to the proposal in the weeklyOSM newsletter. Having a link to the process page would help inform new users that are not necessarily aware of how it works. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Where it should be added? I have no obvious ideas, and "somehow" is sadly also not one Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Rename "Abandoned" to "Archived"

I propose to rename "Abandoned" to "Archived" and change proposal box for them to brown background (like Template:Historic artifact start). It would be nicer than "Abandoned" (so less proposal authors would complain about correct classifying their proposals as abandoned) and would be less confusing for cases where proposal is abandoned and tag is in use. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

For example see old revision of goods conveyor - suggesting that this tag is bad (with flashy yellow eyesore and "abandoned") just because proposal was abandoned is not useful. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Goods_conveyor&oldid=prev&diff=2089505 - now demonstrating also irritated proposal author that prefers to avoid describing inactive proposal that never went to vote with a successful tag as "abandoned" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Changing documentation in some places like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Abandoned.2C_Canceled.2C_Obsoleted.2C_Undefined would be needed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Don't call me an "irritated proposal author"! That's an insult for which you need to apologize. You should learn manners! Ever wondered why proposal authors complain when you change their proposals without contacting them first? Contact them first, ask them, discuss the status change with them, and let them do the status change on their own. A proposal is the proponent's work, it's not up to you to fiddle with it. You are not the police, and nobody asked you to fiddle with other people's work. Think about it. Thorougly.
Some users (e.g. Geozeisig and Dieterdreist) do exactly the opposite of what you do. They set all proposals they like to "approved", "in use" or "de-facto". Instead of sabotaging proposals that were honestly and correctly left in "proposed" state, you should stop that practice of setting proposals to approved without voting.
--Fkv (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
"you should stop that practice of setting proposals to approved without voting" - can you link a single case where I set proposal to approved without voting? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
""irritated proposal author"! That's an insult for which you need to apologize" I am sorry if you feel angry, insulted or irritated by this description. My intention of proposal here was to AVOID irritating or angering people while allowing to distinguish active proposals from ones that will never be put to vote. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
"They set all proposals they like to "approved"" - if proposal was not approved then it should not be done. ""in use" or "de-facto"" - it is a valid status for tag but not really useful for proposal, it is orthogonal to "Draft, Proposed, Voting, Post-Vote, Approved, Rejected, Canceled, Abandoned, Obsoleted" statuses Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
No, please do not do that. Some proposals are approved and archived like Proposed features/Key:locked (random sample from Category:Archived proposals). Archiving and abandoning are different processes. AFAIK archiving is simply done to tell the people not to change the page anymore and to start a completely new page, so they do not mess with previous proposals. I sometimes archived proposals when there was a voting, to that people can check the results and the voters more easily and to avoid multiple ballots on one page. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 17:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest that a better term is "inactive", which implies a proposal that was once active but hasn't had any activity in a long time, and differentiates it from "archived" pages from approved proposals. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I do not have a problem with renaming as long as it is not confusing. However, renaming "Abandoned" to "Archived" is confusing, because there are archived proposals already, so essentially, you either have one name for two distinct statuses, or you merge two different categories, both is bad. It has no meaning beyond the wiki if a proposal is archived or not. The proposal statuses and the fact if a proposal is archived to not have a strong dependency, you can archive a proposal in almost any status (status=voting + archived does not make sense). There are inactive features already, so this is not a good naming either. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 18:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
While "inactive" is used, it is only a category which includes mostly those proposals marked as "abandoned" or "rejected", plus a few "Proposals with undefined or invalid status" and some with status of "Canceled", , "Obsoleted", or "Redundant". I would be happy to rename that category as "not active", if we need it, so we can use "Inactive" to replace "Abandoned".--Jeisenbe (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
"Inactive" - I support this! --Chris2map (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
"archived" doesn't sound well either. I agree that "abandoned" isn't a good choice and it suggests that a tag is abanoned, not proposal. First I was thinking about "abandoned proposal". But I think if a tag was proposed... its status is still proposed even if there was no voting. So how about merge "abandoned" with "proposed"? If it was "abandoned" it was also "proposed". maro21 20:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Rather than changing the status, perhaps what is really needed is a way to group proposals by the last edit date (e.g. "Modified in the last year", etc). --ZeLonewolf (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
As mentioned on the Tagging list a week or so ago, I'd suggest that any Proposal that hasn't had any activity for 6 / 12 months after becoming "Active", be returned to "Draft", so it's still there & available for it's creator to work on, but is no longer cluttering up the list of Active Proposals! --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd support either changing the status to "inactive" or Fizzie41's suggestion. Really, I'm inclined to say Fizzie41's suggestion is the more sane way to deal with a lot of the older "inactive" proposals. As a good portion of them lack any meaningful or useful content, and therefore really shouldn't be cluttering up the lists or main space in the first place. Generally, IMO main space should not be a dumping ground for random, half baked, or barely written articles. Especially after they have been in that state for a while without improvement. Proposals or not. That's exactly what draft space is for. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)