Discussion on access
Hello, can you please read my discussion with VerdyP here: User_talk:Verdy_p#.28disapproved.29_for_access.3Ddesignated and weigh in with your opinion? Thanks. Chrabros (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Although I acknowledge the page might have value as being the original proposal for what became emergency=fire_hydrant, it is what comes up first in the search and the proper tag is four pages down below another emergency=fire_hydrant page. It also doesn't say that it is canceled or deprecated in the search either. Although it does say in the search that emergency=fire_hydrant is only proposed. Which is weird and doesn't help anyone looking up the term. Especially new mappers. So is there another way categorize it so its status actually shows up and the correct tag comes up on in the search above it? Would archiving it at least be an option? Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
We would like to invite you to voting in the case of the proposed Deletion policy for wiki pages and files. Based on the input of several contributors, we drafted a deletion policy over the span of two and a half months. Among other things, the policy proposes a centralised discussion page for all cases which are not mentioned explicitly.
Kind regards, EzekielT
PS: I wrote this message on your talk page, because you were involved in a long dispute about deleting in 2018 and 2019 which now led to this policy draft. — EzekielT (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Revert on Proposed features/Fire Hydrant
Hello. I see that you reverted me on the Proposed features/Fire Hydrant article a while back with the reason that it was the original proposal for the current emergency=fire_hydrant tag. The article for that tag says it was based on Proposed features/Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 2) though and to make things more convoluted that proposal says it was based on Proposed features/Fire Hydrant Extensions. From what I can tell proposed features/Fire Hydrant Extensions doesn't say it was based on Proposed features/Fire Hydrant though.
Personally, I don't really care which proposal or tag was based on what. Except it doesn't serve anyone to have four different articles for the same tag, that all recommend different ways of tagging. If you don't want the Proposed features/Fire Hydrant article to be deleted fine. Can you at least archive it and the other fire hydrant proposals so there isn't any confusion about how to tag fire hydrants though? I'd do it myself, but I don't really know how to archive pages and I don't feel like being reverted again anyway. Plus, I think since you took issue with the deletion request in the first place it would be good if you implement the alternative. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- You can check history for emeregency=fire_hydrant back to 2010 to see it was in fact based on Proposed features/Fire Hydrant.
- I didn't archive the proposal because I was unaware about this feature and it is quite possible it wasn't even available at the time. Maraf (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wierd it doesn't say so on the other proposals then. Not supprising though. The Wiki is kind of a mess. As far as I know archiving proposals was avalible when you reverted me. Although I didn't know it was an option at that point either. Maybe I'll just see if an admin do it. Adamant1 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed recent edits made to facebook=* and contact:facebook=*, and I wanted to get your thoughts on a potential formal proposal for deprecating the non-prefixed versions of social media, messengers, and web services related keys to end the issue of tag fragmentation. Currently every contact prefix key, with the exception of Facebook, has a clear community preference for the prefixed version. So I would like to know if you have any reasons against or for using the prefixed version that could be brought up in the proposal process. --Mxdanger (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)