Template talk:Deprecated

Questions

I like this template because is gives a good "graveyard" tag page, which is e.g. nice for for Taginfo.

1. Should Template:Deprecated_feature be included? I created this because of the subtleness of the "deprecated" status and it also includes all the warnings from Deprecated_features about mass-edits.
2. There is often not one key which replaces the old one. That's why I made the parameter of Template:Deprecated_feature as "free text".
3. Why named "Discouraged"? The feature is "deprecated" and only the usage is "discouraged". With the current title and wording it sounds like there is another status "discouraged".--Jojo4u (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I this it should include the Template:Deprecated_feature. Do you plan to rename it from "Discouraged" to something else? I am OK with it. Chrabros (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I added Template:Deprecated_feature, replaced newkey/newvalue by newtext and moved the template to Template:Deprecated. Deprecated is used 500-600x in the wiki, while discouraged is used 100-200x.--Jojo4u (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

when oldvalue unset -> key template

When oldvalue is unset Template:KeyDescription should be used instead of Template:ValueDescription. There is also Template:RelationDescription but we have yet to deprecate a relation.--Jojo4u (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course creating DeprecatedKey and DeprecatedValue instead could also be a solution.--Jojo4u (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Any solution? I just used "Deprecated" on Key:building:type and it works mostly well, just the taginfo link uses the 'oldvalue' verbatim instead of ignoring it. --Polarbear w (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Localization?

Hi, I would like to be able to translate the text "description=Using this tag is discouraged, use {{{newtext}}} instead." to Czech langugage. Could you please modify the template accordingly? Thank you. Chrabros (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added a framework for translated text, you will nedd to add the actual translation.--Andrew (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!--Jojo4u (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Chrabros (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Image

I would suggest to change the image to an icon that symbolizes the word "deprecated" more. This would help those mappers who use data items like the tag information included in iD. Ideas below:

• 

  a stopping hand

• 

  a cross sign

• 

  black and white version

Comments? Suggestions? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 09:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. From the above, I'd prefer the stopping hand. It clearly symbolises the intention and is different enough from any traffic signs I know. --Polarbear w (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Data item consumers are likely to be better off with a message or image based on the deprecated status. --Andrew (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I am against an icon that is completely discarding the hypothesis that the deprecated tag could eventually be the best available option. A warning sign to call for attention and thinking about it (as it used to be), is more appropriate than a total rejection as in the new icon. —Dieterdreist (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Needs to be fixed

• [1]: the link to a tag {{Tag|leaf_cycle|evergreen}} is displayed in the first table, but is also copied to the description, which must not contain any wiki markup or HTML. It's also added to Category:Mismatched description because the description in data item is different. Otherwise it should be "Użycie tego tagu jest odradzane, zamiast tego należy użyć {{tag|leaf_cycle|evergreen|lang=pl}}." - but the description in the data item should be a plain text.

code: {{Deprecated|oldkey=wood|oldvalue=evergreen|newtext={{tag|leaf_cycle|evergreen|lang=pl}}}}

• [2] the link to the tag is correct and descriptions in the data items and infobox are the same and don't contain any wiki markup, but in the first table a user sees no link to the tag but "Zalecany zamiennik to: tag:leaf_cycle=evergreen".

code: {{Deprecated|oldkey=wood|oldvalue=evergreen|newtext=tag:leaf_cycle=evergreen}}

Description templates recognize tag:leaf_cycle=evergreen and key:leaf_cycle and correctly change it to a proper link, so the same should be done in the ambox template. maro21 19:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I added conversion of key: and tag: into tag links to the message box. @Maro21: Could you test it? --Chris2map (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, this works in most cases, but it won't help in cases where, for example, a tag can be replaced by two tags. Check Tag:amenity=customs: {{Deprecated|oldkey=amenity|oldvalue=customs|newtext={{tag|office|government}} + {{tag|government|customs}}}} - the links won't display correctly.

The very idea of having text typed in one place to turn into two different formatting is pointless (I don't mean your changes, just what was already there before and someone didn't take it into account).

Of course, your fix fixed the error and it will be fine. However, we would still need to improve the documentation of this template so that people use the format tag:key=value and unfortunately in 99% of cases the old formatting with the template {Tag} is used. So we have technical possibility to solve the issue mentioned in this thread, but the values in the template using {Tag} still cause pages to be in category Mismatched description.

Also, after these changes, an error popped up "Warning: Default sort key "wood=evergreen" overrides earlier default sort key "Tag:wood=evergreen".": Pl:Tag:wood=evergreen. I would just drop the template and use simply {valuedescription}... maro21 20:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The error with the "Warning: Default sort key ..." existed already before. It seems to show up on all language pages with lower or mixed case namespaces, like "Pl:", "Cs:" and so on, but not on upper case namespaces like "ES:", "DE:". I'll try to fix it. - I am largely with you on the rest of your thoughts to the current template. --Chris2map (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"requires" parameter is ignored but taken from data items

Unresolved

I noticed that if data items specifies that some tags are required then it will be displayed. At the same time specifying it with parameter in template will be ignored.

Either it should be possible to specify requires parameter or it should be not shown even if marked in data item. Not sure which would be better and easier to achieve Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite strange seeing a deprecated tag have a "useful combination" simply because the data item still has this. The deprecated template should just ignore it. Casey boy (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Not only "requires" parameter, but other too. The easiest way for now is not using this template.

Using this template limits us. The only thing it adds is an image and an automatic description. And it prevents us from adding other information in the infobox, such as rendering. Deprecated tags can still be rendered and it's impossible to add rendering. Templates are there to save time and work on typing the same things, not to limit our options. This template is buggy and should be fixed or not used. maro21 18:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Why a new template ?

Who changed the great template we had to this horrible one ?

The green is too dark, it is almost impossible to see the text when my computer screen has a low light (espacially the blue links).
+
Green means "ok, you can go" but the text means "stop, don't go".

Previous was in red like

.

Please put back the old template. Fred73000 (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

There were lengthy discussions about the exact shade of green to be used (Template_talk:Wfmessage#Green_colour) so I am a bit tired about this matter. It looks to me as the fault is on your side as you can change the brightness of your screen. Please have a look at Talk:Wiki#Graphical_improvements_to_the_Wiki to find an answer to the initial question. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 09:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, sorry, I did't see the other talk. Fred73000 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Integration in main Template:Description

To handle some of the issues discussed above, I propose to abandon this template and integrate it back in the main Template:Description. Also, I propose to keep the information of the former tag usage (like description, image, applicabilities) and just add the deprecating things. I see those advantages:

1. You can retrace and understand, how and for what the tag had been used. By the way, sometimes the tag stays in use even if it is deprecated.
2. Taginfo keeps working and is able to fetch information.
3. Data items: We'll be able to add the deprecated information subsequently to the module invoking and processing. So there are more possibilities to avoid complaining about mismatches between description or image on tag page and description or image on data item. The content of the data item wouldn't compulsorily need to have the template text with link to the new tag. That text and link could be subsequently added behind the description.
4. You do not have to change the description box template when deprecating a tag. You can just update the status to deprecated and add parameter newtext= in addition.

A first attempt is at Template:Description/sandbox (permalink). To test and preview, switch {{TagDescription to {{Description/sandbox on a tag page, change status to deprecated and preview the change. (The test is without data item proccessing because the sandbox doesn't invoke the module). E.g. look at User:Chris2map/Sandbox (permalink). --Chris2map (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep parameter status=deprecated on the tag pages

I insistently want to propose to keep the status parameter (status=deprecated) in combination on every tag page with this template:Deprecated and not to remove them. So that crucial data stays "physically" on the page and it is able to retrieve. --Chris2map (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)