Talk:Key:name:tec

Proposed deletion

Resolved

User:Maro21 proposed this page for deletion with the reason "tag has never been used. Terik language has only 300,000 speakers and is spoken only. Doubtful that this tag will ever be used." This does not appear to be true; here is a page documenting the alphabet used by Terik. I did find one article that mentioned limited available of written teaching materials for the language, but it does still have a written form. In fact, I was able to find a source for a Terik place name which I've now added to OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16382544. I think this page should be kept. –Hayleox (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I documented this tag immediately after also adding it to this town based on a description of the town. (That source refers to Terik language more generically as Kalenjin. You can find a reference to the source on the linked Wikidata item.) Taginfo only updates daily, so unfortunately the taginfo box is misleading for now. Admittedly I had originally committed copy-pasta by stating the key's status as "de facto" rather than "in use", but the tagging scheme is more than de facto. Whenever anyone coins a key that conflicts with the BCP 47 format, software developers inevitably start complaining. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 00:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that the page should be kept; any BCP 47 language code is valid as a qualifier suffix on name=* (and other tags with freeform human-language values). It's unfortunate that this particular language code is easily confused with name:TEC=*, but that's no reason to erase the language from the map. In fact, that's all the more motive to keep the wiki page, in order to document the difference between name:tec=* and name:TEC=* clearly. — Jake Low (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

At the time I made the edit, Taginfo was showing 0 uses, and on top of that the status was set to "de facto". I didn't look at the history or creation date of the article, I just came across this article by browsing the Mismatched descriptions category. There are now 3 uses, so my arguments are no longer valid. maro21 19:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)