Proposal talk:Age group

I don't see the value in this proposal. I also think it often fails the verification guidelines of OSM. Most schools I have seen have no public display of the age range that the school accepts, so how am I supposed to be able to add this tag or verify someone else's tag? Chillly 22:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be extremely useful to record the age-range of schools in an unambiguous machine-readable format, whether it is using the current proposal or some other means. I don't see a problem with verifiability, at least in the UK. Most schools will have their own websites which tell you what the age range is; with knowledge of the system in a particular county you can often be able to determine the age-range from a school's name; private schools will usually have the ages on a sign outside; for schools inspected by Ofsted the age range will be in the publicly available official reports. -- Rjw62 08:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Gathering such information from a website is probably breaching their copyright - something we cannot do without endangering the integrity of OSM. Chillly 20:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There already exist max_age=* and max_age=* which seem to be sufficient for the purpose --Polarbear w (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete proposal

I added a deletion proposal to the main page. There isn't really any content on either this talk page or there that is relevant to the details of the proposal or has any "historical value." Plus, there's another key similar to this one already being used. So I am going to request the page be deleted. I thought id put the banner up though to give people a chance to moan about it if they want to before I do an actual request. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Moan moan! For the usual reasons. There was a discussion in which another set of keys was found to be more useful. Thus it serves as a reference for next person having the idea for the same proposal. --Polarbear w (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The page hasn't been edited except by you and me since 2012 and whoever has a similar idea will probably find the better tag through the search. Not by combing a bunch of abandoned proposals. So I doubt it serves that purpose. Or, maybe I should create a bunch of pages that are nothing but references to other tags "just in case." Find a better reason for the page to stay or I'll request it be deleted. I'm not putting up with you or others harassment about doing it anymore though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Setting ultimatum does not work.--Polarbear w (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Its not an ultimatum because its not retaliation to hold you accountable to the rules. Which you would and have broken (along with Nakaner) by reverting me without a really good legitimate reason. To quote SomeoneElse from when I got in it with Verdy_p for the exact same thing, "If he reverts a page because the previous version was "fine" and you think it wasn't, I'd suggest escalating that to a wiki admin." Verdy_p said the exact same things you have about "history." He reverted a bunch of page deletion requests. He falsely cried that I was edited warring just like Nakaner did. He refused to talk about specifics just like you and the rest of the gang have refused to. Ultimately though he was on the losing end of things all three times I reported him. There's no reason you and the others wouldn't be. Eventually the pages he threw a fit over got were deleted by Lyx, just like 99% of the ones you originally took issue with. So, Verdy_p's protests didn't lead anywhere and neither has yours.

Is it really worth continuing to do something your clearly in the wrong about? Personally, I don't think so. Especially considering the only path forward if you do is getting reported to the DWG and the pages probably being deleted anyway. You can care about "history" and "mankind" all you want on your own time, but the admins clearly don't see it your way. Neither do other users. The Admins don't think blank pages have historical value and they are perfectly willing to delete pages that have none (which none of the ones I asked to be deleted did). So you might as well just drop the issue. If you really think a word here and there is worth saving, feel free to copy it over to your user page or something, but don't attack or attempt to undermined me just because I disagree with you. Everything I have follows the rules and is based in either earlier precedent or discussions with people more qualified then you. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleting pages like this is pointless and serves no purpose. It is preferable to keep them as an archive and semiredirect. Feel free to set status to Abandoned where applicable Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe to you. Its not to me and clearly not to other people. I don't know why your opinion would be superior to mine or anyone elses. Even Woodpeck said it be might beneficial to delete pages sometimes in certain circumstances. So I guess he doesn't know what he's talking about huh? Or SomeoneElse who said the same? Or EzekielT on my talk page? or the people on the mailing list? Or Lyx when he deleted a bunch of pages before? No, screw us. Our opinions don't matter apparently. Its not like you don't request pages be deleted. So you can but I can't? I can't even request a discussion about page being deleted either huh? A suggestion for a deletion has zero effect on the page. There's also zero reason you couldn't have joined the discussion, gave your opinion, and then waited for others to give theirs. What's the rush? Your obviously unwilling to talk about the specifics of the merits of any single page being around and its far from a discussion. This is exactly the kind of bossy, elitist thing I'm talking about. Neither of you are willing to even discuss it. You'll just say a bunch of crap that's based in nothing, but then when there's any alternative view points you ignore them and you ignore any attempts to even come up with something different or better to do. Its telling neither one of have commented in Tigerfell's forum post about it. Its obviously just bullying, or you would. You quickly do reverts like this to because you rather squash any discussion before its clear people don't share your opinion. Ultimately, neither one of you actually care about the pages, just that your right and get to have your way. Otherwise, why not allow for and participate in discussion about specifics? Shouting down even a request for conversation about it is pretty feckless. So is not participating in one before you take action or at all. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Lyx left a good comment about this whole thing on his talk page. I'll give both you a few days to read and respond to it. Then I will probably revert @Mateusz Konieczy's reversion here and other places, if Lyx doesn't just delete the pages in the mean time. Since his reverts clearly don't reflect other people's opinions or follow proper procedure. Hopefully, both of you take what Lyx says to heart and don't continue this bullying none sense. It would also be nice if both of you participate in the forum discussion so this can be resolved in a more established, thought out, long-term manor. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I have replied here. RicoZ (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I replied over at the forum listing the pages I would delete and why. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 00:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)