Talk:Kosmos standard rules

Discuss KosmosStandardRules

---

Catalan Rules

Skywave, I see that you've added text fallback for rendering Catalan place names. I think that such customizations are best implemented using a separate Wiki page (I see that you already created one), since this page is meant to contain standard rules, not specific ones for your local needs. Otherwise it will become bloated with too many regional preferences. Standard rules should contain more general stuff: instead of using TagToUse=name:ca;name:oc;name, why not TagToUse=reg_name;nat_name;name? This way it becomes applicable to all users, not just Catalans ;) --Breki 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an mistake, i pasted it to the wrong page. Reverted it. --Skywave 08:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

New additions

What's your policy on adding new stuff to this page? because I noticed when using Kosmos for File:Stratford-sketchy-lines.png, that there's a handful of missing tags. See where I've labelled them 'NEW' in the rules lower down on that image page. -- Harry Wood 23:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki page just like any other and you (and everybody else) are free (and certainly welcome) to contribute new rules or update existing ones. This is what Kosmos rendering rules are all about. Of course, if someone plans to add very specific rules, maybe another rules page would be better than this standard one (see [[1]]). I'm not talking about your rules though, they are pretty general and would be a nice addition. --Breki 05:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Downgrading delete to Deletion proposal

This page was wiped with Template:Delete by User:Adamant1 10:50, 30 May 2018‎. The reason given:

"Kosmos as a program is no longer being developed and has been replaced. Also the page where it use to be is no longer available. Therefore, the rules about how to use it are no longer relevant or usable. Plus, this page has not even edited in 7 years"

I know this was part of Adamant1's wider cleanups, including deleting lots of Kosmos related pages. Was that discussed elsewhere? I don't necessarily disagree with it, but for this particular one though, this is (was) the central rules list which lots of other rules pages linked back to (and still do). I'm thinking it's maybe more important than all those others (The others tend to be modified copies of this right?), so ...at least its deletion should be saved until last.

For the moment I'll downgrade this to a Template:delete_proposal, and work on labelling it more clearly as old software,

but another outcome could be a redirect to Kosmos. That has the advantage of at retaining access to the old content for anyone who might want to delve into the page history. I think that would be better than a delete.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"at least its deletion should be saved until last" Sorry. That was my bad. If I remember correctly I had requested deletion on a bunch of pages that linked to it and the deletion template says that all linked pages should have a deletion request. Plus, I thought they would all get deleted together anyway. It didn't turn out that way though because of the scrum over the whole thing. If I had it to do over, I probably would have ignored the "link pages" warning and waited on doing deletion requests for a lot of them. Including this one. Oh well, such is life. Thanks for saving it and adding the deletion proposal at least. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Harry Wood: Maybe, Template:Historic artifact start helps? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 17:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tigerfell: Originally cleaning up Kosmos related articles was posted as something to do on Wikiproject Cleanup and the creator of the software had posted in a few places that deleting the articles was probably a good idea. If both of those things are going to be ignored by not deleting articles related to Kosmos, then something should be done to shelve Wikiproject Cleanup or something. So this kind of crap doesn't happen again, because the whole thing was a completely ridiculous waste of time. More so given that it's still an issue. It's worthless to have a "cleanup" project when people who attempt to do what it recommends just get attacked and reverted repeatedly. Which has happened for other things the project recommends also. It's pretty clear "revert, attack, repeat" is the de facto standard for dealing with things around here. Everyone does it to everyone, for everything. It's extremely bogus to pretend there is such a thing as a cleanup project when no one will let people do what it recommends. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)