Talk:Key:name

Note: Most discussion can now be found at Talk:Names, since the majority of page content was moved from Key:name -> Names

---

noname details

Perhaps when using noname=yes there should be a recommended way of explaining how you really know that it doesn't have a name. For instance adding a noname:details="I asked the owners and they said the pond doesn't have a name even though it's so large." Jidanni (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I would use note=* or maybe note:noname=* or noname:note=* (both variations can be found for note-subtags) --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Clarification is required

There are constant debates in my neighborhood about what is a name. The most relevant question is: What if a(n only) visible sign on a shop is a general term in the local language? E.g. imagine a shop=hairdresser (+female=yes) object that has a sign over the entrance Hairdresser (in UK) or Coiffure (in French) or Damenfriseur (in Germany). Is this an unnamed hairdresser or not? --Kogutowicz Manó (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The "name" key specifies the proper name of the object. It names an individual object. "Hairdresser" is not a proper name, but a common name. It names a group of objects.--RobHubi (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Page structure makes sense?

In my opinion, it makes no sense to multiply information:

• The "values" section is almost completely contained in the main article.
• The "Variants" table is already completely contained in the main article.
• The complete table of language subkeys extends over more than 3 screen pages and fits better in the page "Multilingual names", otherwise it would have to be duplicated for all key variants (int_name, loc_name ...).
• The sections "Road names" and "Additional data" are also already included in the main article. Only the sentence with "strapline" is supplementary.

In addition to the high redundancy, the text is also blurred. The core - the "proper name" - is not mentioned at all. The explanations lead to problematic statements. Example:

"sources of primary names: The most prominent name on a sign posted on the feature itself, especially for a feature in the built environment"

So this building should be tagged with name=Toaletter? Clearly wrong.

This page is largely redundant and the additional explanations are misleading. The page should be restructured.

Suggestion: like here --RobHubi (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this page could be made simpler. The "Variants" section should just be in the Main article, not duplicated here. --GreyTK (talk) 06:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I saw you removed a lot of content from the page, this should be reverted. For changes on such elementary tags like name, a week of announcement on a wiki discussion page and one person agreeing isn’t enough. Keep in mind that this page is the result of years of consensus building. —-Dieterdreist (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I maintain my suggestion and am happy to wait a while for further feedback. --RobHubi (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Change of "primary" to "proper" is not helpful and seems to not be discussed. In general it is fine to edit without waiting, but it is also fine to revert such edits. I do not see good reason to remove See also section links. Deleting "Sometimes these sources disagree: a single feature may be known by a different name to different people or in different places. " section is really unhelpful as this is repeated situation. I have not reviewed other changes. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

2.1 "Change of "primary" to "proper" is not helpful and seems to not be discussed."

This change is justified in the proposal. The term "primary name" is vague; there is no definition for it in Wikipedia, but there is one for the term "proper name":

"In the philosophy of language, a proper name – examples include a name of a specific person or place – is a name which ordinarily is taken to uniquely identify its referent."

In the German language, there is a specific word for this: "Eigenname". For the term in another 47 languages, see proper noun.

2.2 "I do not see good reason to remove See also section links"

There are currently 12 name keys defined. Maintaining the "See also section links" in all name variants is time-consuming and error-prone. It is better to have them in only one place - the main article - and only link to it.

2.3 "Deleting "Sometimes these sources disagree: a single feature may be known by a different name ..." "

This section refers to the differentiation of name variants, which are also described in detail in the main article. In my opinion, it makes no sense to repeat it here and for the other 11 name variants. The text should be integrated into the main article section "Good practice". A link there should suffice.

2.4 “In general it is fine to edit without waiting, but it is also fine to revert such edits”

The restructuring proposal was submitted for discussion on 19 Dec. The proposal contained a detailed rationale and a link to the full text (in German). The first contribution to the discussion was 1 day later. There were no further discussion posts until 28 Dec. So I waited 9 days for posts, I don't understand the statement "edit without waiting".

It's ok if you think the waiting time is too short. It's ok if you don't agree with the content of the change, but does it justify an undiscussed, complete revert? That's the way to deal with vandalism. I don't think it's right to use it here.

What would have been an alternative? Maybe like this: "Please revert your change and give us more time and more room for discussion, for example by creating a separate page with your text proposal."

Re 2.1 - this is intended to be readable by common people and would go with term that is understandable, and not with philosophy of language terms. The biggest issue is that "proper name" can be misunderstood as overriding on the ground principle and with "proper" understood as "according to my nation/group/religion". But I am not a native speaker, maybe asking more people at https://community.openstreetmap.org/ is a good idea. (also, it is English language page, which term is preferred or existing in German is utterly irrelevant - this should be discussed at German translation page) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

"and a link to the full text (in German)" - typical contributor to English language page at OSM Wiki does not understand German and should not be expected to understand it. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

"Maintaining the "See also section links" in all name variants is time-consuming and error-prone." - they do not change often, I would not overestimate pain here. But in the worst case this can be moved to template, definitely not deleted Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

3.1 "Re 2.1 - this is intended to be readable by common people and would go with term that is understandable, and not with philosophy of language terms"

The term "proper name" is also used in the same sense outside the philosophy of language:

Oxford English Dictionary :

A name, consisting of a proper noun or noun phrase including a proper noun, that designates an individual person, place, organization, ...

Merriam-Webster :

a noun (such as Seattle, Joyce, or Empire State Building) that designates a particular being or thing, does not take a limiting modifier, and is usually capitalized in English -> called also proper name.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language :

A noun belonging to the class of words used as names for unique individuals, events, or places. Also called proper name.

The term "proper noun" is very present in school lessons. See "First Grade Grammar Practice for the Year". In principle, every common people should have heard of it at least once.

If the memory of it has faded, that's not too bad, as it is explained immediately afterwards.

3.2 "The biggest issue is that "proper name" can be misunderstood as overriding on the ground principle and with "proper" understood as "according to my nation/group/religion"

The term "proper name" can certainly be interpreted differently when considered on its own terms. Ambiguous words exist in all languages; only the context reveals the meaning. In the context of the proposal, I don't see where these misunderstandings could arise. In the "description" on the right-hand side of the page, both misunderstandings are even explicitly ruled out.

3.3 "and a link to the full text (in German)" - typical contributor to English language page at OSM Wiki does not understand German and should not be expected to understand"

Nobody needs to know German. Good translation programmes are just a mouse click away. This is also reasonable for the English-speaking part of the world.

3.4 "Maintaining the "See also section links" in all name variants .., can be moved to template, definitely not deleted"

Agree, let's do it that way. --RobHubi (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of changes in your recent edit, I am asking you to undo this for the moment and make a proposal from it. Here is how it works: Proposal process. --Dieterdreist (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

For such tag I would rather discuss it at https://community.openstreetmap.org/ rather than make a proposal Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dieterdreist: This is the same statement as for the first version, which was reverted. The reason given at the time: "a week of announcement isn't enough". In the meantime, 7 weeks have passed and an intensive discussion has taken place. I consider this point to have been fulfilled.

New point "Proposal": On 2 January 2024, I proposed in point 2.4 the creation of a separate page with the planned text. You did not take up this, so we are continuing the discussion here. I don't think it's fair to demand at the end what wasn't accepted at the beginning. It's like changing the game rules during the game.

The Wiki-SW ensured that all interested authors of the two articles "names" and "name" were informed of the changes several times. There were sufficient opportunities to contribute to the design of the text. Now the normal mapper should also be given the opportunity to work with the text and provide feedback. --RobHubi (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: I would like to draw attention to the restructuring of the wiki name page on the forum and ask for feedback.--RobHubi (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

See, this is really a crucial page for the project, names can be very important, and there have been endless disputes connected to the value of name=*. Many paragraphs of this page are the result of years of discussion and compromise. Any significant changes should be discussed with the broader community. I agree with Mateusz that a discussion on the general talk forum would be just as fine as following the proposal process in this case (it is not about defining a tag, rather about changing the wording to be more concise without loosing content, right?). Please note that the proposal process also requires public announcement (tagging mailing list). This wiki discussion page alone is not suitable to reach a wider audience. --Dieterdreist (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

"The Wiki-SW ensured that all interested authors of the two articles "names" and "name" were informed of the changes several times." - yes, but it is only tiny subset of OSM community impacted here. OSM Wiki editors are only small part of OSM community and significant rewrite of one more important pages would really benefit from wider overview. Note also that for example for primary/proper name you had single opposing comment (mine) and AFAIK noone supporting your language preference, you applied this change anyway Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"OSM Wiki editors are only small part of OSM community ..." I agree, especially as the result here is not satisfactory.

"Note also that for example for primary/proper name you had single opposing comment (mine) and AFAIK noone supporting your language preference, you applied this change anyway"

The changes in V2 are due to your contributions. Regarding language preference: your interpretation is not in line with the uniform opinion of: (1) Oxford English Dictionary, (2) Merriam-Webster, and (3) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (see links above). Sorry, it's 3:1 against your preference. Please also note that in the main article "names", "primary name" is not used once, whereas "proper name" is used several times.

Summary of the discussion "Page structure makes sense?"

Participants: 3
Contributions to the core question "Restructuring ": 1x in favour (GreyTK), 0x against
Contributions to the content: 1x in favour (GreyTK), several constructive rejections (Mateusz Konieczny), no contribution (Dieterdreist).
Resume: not satisfactory

I would like to thank everyone involved. My special thanks go to the authors of the main article "names" for their really good work.

Vote

The vote "Restructure wiki page key:name" is open until June 24, 2024. Please share your opinion. --RobHubi (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Resolved: It appears that vote was cancelled and this proposal seems to be defunct. Several good ideas from it were implemented by now. It looks like this section can be archived now? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Move Variants section to Names?

Maybe moving https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name#Variants to Names all altogether new page such as List of all name tags would make sense? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Resolved: it was significantly trimmed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of "Additional data" section

@Duja: recently made a number of (generally very helpful) edits to the page, one of which was removing a section titled "Additional data", which contained a (somewhat repetitious) list of properties/features that aren't names: "the type or location of the object or one of its other properties (such as height, elevation, operator, access restrictions, classification/certification/quality labels". I think it's still useful to have that list mentioned somewhere on the page, but I'm not sure where, or how best to phrase it. Thoughts? JesseFW (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

JesseFW: I agree. I thought it was covered above, and it sort-of was, but not in so explicit manner. I will try to restore it in the Values section, although it's becoming somewhat long and could use some partitioning. Duja (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice, I like where you put it back. I think this is resolved. JesseFW (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Resolved: The sentence was put back in a better place.

Clarification about capitalisation and spelling rules

Shouldn’t we also mention that even if a name is written in all caps (e.g. on a street sign) users should write name=* with the usual spelling rules in the local language/country? It seems obvious but once in a while we find users believing in good faith that names should be written in ALL-CAPS because this is how signs are printed on the field. Bxl-forever (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It is well covered in Names#Good practice.

I'm not sure how to cross-reference that material from Key:name and related articles so that it gains more visibility.

• One possibility is to merge Names into Key:name, which is the principal tag of the whole group, but that could make the resulting article too long. I did something similar recently with Types of relations, merging them into Key:type. But then, we already have #Variants section duplicated between the two articles, so it might not be too bad after all.
• Another is to keep the articles separate, but transclude the same content in both, like I did with Isochrone (see List_of_OSM-based_services#Isochrone)

Thoughts, anyone? Duja (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)