Talk:Tag:shop=caravan

How about the service:vehicle prefix ? This prefix IMHO doesn't make sense (adds no value or information) and has never been discussed but only been implemented by the ID admins. We now got 4 different formats for bicycle, motorcycle and car services (let alone other formats as the currently discussed like taxi_type=*). I think it's high time to establish one format for all use cases. user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You know motorcycle:repair=*, car:repair=*, caravan:repair=* etc isn't one format right? If it was there would be a single value for the whatever= then the different values would be after the equal sign. As it is, its a bunch of different formats with the possibility of it being so many as to be irrelevant and unusable. Also, your also none discussed tagging scheme (Or is it schemes since they aren't actually the same tag?) doesn't make any more sense then service:vehicle does either. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

"whatever:repair" would mean "one format", as it follows the same principle. The only (services) format with a formal proposal was bicycle so far. And the only difference to similar formats is the additional "service:" - prefix, couldn't figure out what it should be good for. The next one (car according to ID editor) is adding another useless prefix. Tried to discuss that on the mailing list, but all what was mentioned was about mailing format and politeness, nothing at all concerning the main issue. Also see namespace. I would appreciate if everyone would focus more on the subject.

user:rtfmRtfm (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I seriously considered using the caravan:sells=yes format that you have introduced, because it does make a certain amount of sense. However, I went with the established service:caravan= until there is a higher level of consensus on the new scheme. As for the mailing list, if you started with a RFC, then a vote on a radical new proposal, rather than just announcing "I've changed a very basic layout", your idea may have gotten further. user:Fizzie41 21:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that RTFM's tagging scheme isn't the best. He should have followed the procedure Fizzie41 suggested in January. Instead of ignoring Fizzie41's comment, waiting until some time passed, and then editing the page to replace the old scheme with his, like he did. He's repeatedly ignored other people's feedback and done things like that. Which is a really wrong way to go about things. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)