Template talk:Proposal page/Archive 1

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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)

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)

I enabled Inactive status in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Proposals_with_%22Abandoned%22_status&diff=2237792&oldid=1904404 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Proposals_with_%22Inactive%22_status&action=history https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Proposal_page&diff=2237793&oldid=2198068 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Proposal_Status&curid=24697&diff=2237785&oldid=2135596 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Proposal_page/doc&diff=2237809&oldid=2197444 edits Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

And also [1] [2] [3] to better handle cases where proposal is abandoned but tag is not Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Float right

Dear all. For an unexplained reason, this templates appears as right floating html element on many proposal pages.
See here for instance. It wasn't the case this weekend I think, did something significant changed? Fanfouer (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fanfouer: Fixed. Lectrician1 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Fanfouer and Lectrician1: This change back in 2016 intended to float the box to the right in left-to-right languages and to the left in right-to-left languages using a bit of inline CSS. However, it had a syntax error causing the inline CSS to be invalid and ineffective in all languages. This change fixed the syntax error, restoring the float to the right (or left), but you're both right that it's unexpected at this point, so I removed the floating code altogether. (I don't think there actually are any proposals written in Arabic or Hebrew; that was probably one of those flourishes typical of Verdy_p back in the day.) – Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you two for this quick fix, it's good now Fanfouer (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)