Template talk:Proposal Page

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Test Page

Proposal Page test --Nickvet419 02:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Autofilling the Edit Box

We could consider also creating a template that, in conjunction with the preload parameter that can be passed to wikipages, autofills the template and page headings.

In this case, it would be suitable to move the current Template:Proposal Page elsewhere, and use this template article as the prefiller instead. --Thomas Wood 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed features test heres is a page to play around with the idea.--Nickvet419 05:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

status updates

to Phobie: the 1Nov change works great. This will help weed out a bad status. great job.--Nickvet419 22:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking good. But any reason why several cases all fall through to "rejected"? At the very least, I would distinguish between "Abandoned" and "Rejected". One means people have not bothered with the proposal, while the other means that the discussion has actively concluded that it wasn't a good idea. "Abandoned" proposals may be resurrected, redrafted, whatever. "Rejected" should probably be terminal. Chriscf 14:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with abandond proposals going into a seporate catagory. These proposals are still in the proposal proccess but just lack attintion. I don't think Rejected should be terminal because they were posibly rejected on the fact that they were not discribed properly. Rejcted proposals can still be moved back into the proposal proccess if someone takes the time to rework the proposal.--Nickvet419 23:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
That's probably not a good idea. Certainly abandaoned proposals can be picked up as-is, whereas doing the same for proposals which have actively been rejected seems an awful lot like trying to introduce features by attrition. There is certainly a threshold of work that needs to be done to resurrect a rejected proposal. That IMO is enough to justify separating them out. Chriscf 09:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

moving pages

The most recent Idea we've had is to move the rejected proposals pages to rejected_features/(proposal_name). We can then do away with the rejected feature list and still be able to archive the original proposal. The abandoned proposals would then be moved to a diferent page which would encurrage people to continue and finnish the started proposals. Any thoughts on this?--Nickvet419 10:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem about that idea is, that "move" in in reality "create new page, move all content to the new name, make the old page a redirect link". So without sysop-rights you can not undo the move! I propose to never move "Proposed_features/*" sites and mark them by category. Perhaps a better place would be "Proposals/*". But what we really need is the semantic mediawiki addon! --Phobie 05:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed the follwoing code from template. Please test features on a sandbox page before confusing "release" templates.. Martin Renvoize 15:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Testing semantic mediawiki:
[[feature_name::{{{name| }}}]]
[[feature_key::{{{key| }}}]]
[[feature_value::{{{value| }}}]]
[[feature_type::{{{type| }}}]]
[[feature_definition::{{{definition| }}}]]
[[feature_appearance::{{{appearance| }}}]]
[[feature_status::{{{status| }}}]]
[[feature_proposalDate::{{{proposalDate| }}}]]
[[feature_rfcStartDate::{{{rfcStartDate| }}}]]
[[feature_voteStartDate::{{{voteStartDate| }}}]]
[[feature_voteEndDate::{{{voteEndDate| }}}]]

Incorporate recommended "Details" headers into template, or one or more wrapper templates?

Most proposals seem to follow a format very similar to that described in the second section of the Creating_a_proposal#Creating_a_proposal_page document. It might help the creation of more well-reasoned and well-documented proposals if we were to incorporate those into templates; upon a few seconds of reflection it seems better not to modify this little core template but to create new wrapper templates. --Davetoo 02:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's template overload. Wiki templates are confusing for wiki newbies, but they are a lot less confusing if you stick to just bringing in content within a visible box. Also fixing the headings of a page content tends to be annoyingly restrictive. -- Harry Wood 15:38, 19 August 2010 (BST)

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.