Rethinking the import catalog

Continuing the discussion from OSMF Strategy 2023:

Indeed, the import catalog likely isn’t comprehensive, even though it’s listed as one of the steps in the import guidelines. The page currently lists 518 proposed, ongoing, and completed imports, but the category of U.S. import proposals alone has over 400 import writeups, not counting the writeups for other countries.

We could scour the import category and its subcategories for unlisted import proposals, but I think our time would be better spent decentralizing the notion of an import catalog in favor of the individual proposal pages. I think it would be less effort to ensure that each of the table’s entries has a wiki page with all the same information, as the guidelines already require, then update the guidelines to remove the bit about the catalog.

In the long run, a less centralized catalog would be easier to maintain. For one thing, we won’t have to fret over the fact that some people put new entries at the top of the table and others at the bottom. :scream: If there’s any benefit to listing, say, all the Creative Commons Attribution–licensed imports or all the 2019 imports in one place, we can create categories for them, and an infobox template could automatically sort the pages into the right categories. This is how we’ve long organized tagging proposals.

Does anyone know of a legal or logistical reason why these specific details about each import proposal need to be duplicated in a single massive wiki table? Note that a different page contains the attribution legally required by some data sources.

6 posts - 3 participants

Read full topic

Ce sujet de discussion accompagne la publication sur