Talk:Tag:message=funding

man_made=* key is associated with one gender

This proposal is for a new tag, so you don't need to use the man_made=* key. You could choose another key. It (man_made) is associated with one gender. I suggest you use a different key. What about artificial=*, or information=*.

Amᵃᵖanda (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Amᵃᵖanda: This seems like a more general critique of man_made=* that could be raised in a less obscure venue. If artificial=* had been chosen, it probably would’ve gotten criticized for inconsistency, for better or worse. But to me these signs best fit under the existing advertising=* tagging scheme, analogous to advertising=sign. The subject may not be a consumer product or service, but the point of the sign is to make the funder’s participation more visible to the general public, just like a sponsorship spot on TV. They don’t always have a lot of information on them. In the U.S., similar signs are frequently posted near ongoing or finished highway construction projects; they typically only contain logos that motorists can read at a glance at high speed. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 15:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"This seems like a more general critique of man_made=* that could be raised in a less obscure venue" - it was done, see Proposed features/artificial and one of proposals in discussion was to avoid deprecation of existing values and to avoid creation of new ones. artificial=* was proposed but it (at least to me, non-native speaker) is strongly connected to "fake" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny and Amᵃᵖanda: Thanks, somehow I missed that discussion. If the proposal to freeze man_made=* has some traction, it should be noted in Key:man_made. Otherwise, people are going to keep going through the trouble of coining new tags under this key, only to be informed that there's a better, more obscure alternative. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I my impression there was no clear consensus to do this, but maybe mentioning that substantial part of community recommends to use different key for new tags would be a good idea Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I like proposal to treat it as advertisement, it makes sense! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I raise it here to discourge new tags with man_made=* being created. I think information=* fits well here instead. information=board is in active use for very similar things. But I've no strong objection to advertising=* Amᵃᵖanda (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Minh Nguyen: @Mateusz Konieczny: After reading your opinions I also think the key could be changed. However, I agree more with @Amᵃᵖanda:, because, for example, Polish funding signs result from the legal necessity to provide information (quote: "In order to inform the public opinion and persons and entities participating in the Project about the co-financing obtained, the Beneficiary is obliged to place an information board at the Project implementation site."). So I would prefer to tag funding signs as information=board; board_type=funding with other related tags which are in the article. Coolawik (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"information=board; board_type=funding" will have irritating problem: encouraging to add fake tourism=information for rendering (and some presets/validators/QA/mappers may also encourage this) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: So advertising=funding_sign would be better? Coolawik (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion: yes Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

advertising=sign + message=funding. --- Kovposch (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

advertising=sign tag is usually associated with logos on buildings; signs of shops and commercial signs at the entrances than with boards. I'd rather create a new tag. Coolawik (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Or advertising=board. 3 photos in the middle of Tag:advertising=board#Advertising_board_examples look comparable. In the end, what I mean is advertising=* is the format. You can be message-neutral by specifying in message=*. Kovposch (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

OK. Final change: advertising=board; message=funding. Coolawik (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: Moved to advertising=funding_sign Coolawik (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC) message=funding. Coolawik (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Permanence

TIGER funding sign (not that TIGER!)

It should probably be stated that these signs should only be mapped if they’re posted on a permanent basis or at least a long-term basis. Funding signs are often posted at short-term road construction projects which themselves may not be particularly mappable. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 15:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: Added "As usual this signs should be mapped only when present long-term. This is typical for signs declaring that "something was funded from funds distributed by European Union." Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Tag for what flags are displayed on sign?

The sample image shows a sign with (at least?) an EU & PL flag. I suggest finding a way to map “Flag X is displayed on the sign”. Some English organisations didn't like displaying EU flags for funding signs like this. So I think it could be useful to map.

I'm unsure the best way to map multiple yes/no options like this. I'm unsure how many tools actually support our semicolons. Maybe one tag per flag displayed: displays_flag:XX=yes/no e.g. in this example: displays_flag:EU=yes,displays_flag:PL=yes

Amᵃᵖanda (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Amᵃᵖanda: Instead of a new, nation-centric scheme for identifying flags, we could reuse flag:name=*/flag:wikidata=*, which aren't restricted to flagpoles. Among other things, these keys have already appeared on building=* areas and more to indicate how they're painted. However, a flag isn't necessarily an indication of who provided funding. In the eminently patriotic USA, an American flag may conceivably appear on a sign for a project that got no federal funding. Conversely, the sign at right depicts the logos of two U.S. federal government programs that funded the project but no U.S. flag. So I don't think a flag-related tag on a funding sign should automatically imply anything about funding, even if that tends to be the case in the EU. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 01:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Fund, funding, funder

The gerund/noun funding=* makes me think more of the particular fund that the grant comes from. More importantly, to be consistent with beneficiary=* vs grant=* & full_cost=*, and others from operator=* & owner=* to architect=* and artist=* etc, it should use the entity form funder=*. This allows funding=* or others to be used together for something else. Eg funder=Unia Europejska + funder:wikidata=Q458 + fund=Europejski Fundusz Rozwoju Regionalnego + fund:wikidata=Q1361297. Kovposch (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kovposch: Agreed, I've started using funder=* in my own mapping based on your suggestion. I appreciate that your suggestion treats funder=* as a freeform key, similar to operator=* and manufacturer=*, whereas the article currently implies that we have to come up with a system of short acronyms for all the possible organizations in the world that might fund a project. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 03:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: @Kovposch and Minh Nguyen: OK so I changed it in article (I've added funder=* and changed funding=* to freeform key). Coolawik (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that "sponsor" is a more natural term for this relationship between the feature and a benefactor. sponsor=* is already used 140 times compared to just 4 for funder=*. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 06:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Damn, didn't think of it. Only wanted to keep fund- forms to be unified. But "sponsor" usually have more involvement in a project. They act as an authority and icon, sometimes enjoy naming cf name:wikidata=*; in exchange for exposure, prestige, and other benefits. Grants take more of a position to show they made project a reality. I imagine sometimes they may not provide the most financial support, if the project applied for another grant. --- Kovposch (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kovposch: That's fair, it feels OK to me to have separate funder=* and sponsor=* tags to be used in slightly different situations. Maybe we can mention it as an alternative but keep message=funding instead of message=sponsorship. Similarly, architect=*, builder=*, and contractor=* are all very common, even though these roles can overlap. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)