Talk:Key:theme

2020-07 edits

Hi Adamant1, I'd like to talk about the recent edits we've been doing ( [1], [2] ). To address your feedback:

• It's a lot easier if the examples are list form

  But why? I put sentences to explain things. To show that theme=irish is for Irish pubs, not cuisine=irish. Sure, if someone knows OSM tagging standards, one could deduce that, but to me the purpose of this documentation is to inform those who don't know.

• Gay "friendly" aren't gay themed. Plus, the example doesn't even mention the theme tag anyway. So, it's not an example

  I included lgbtq=primary to prevent people (including) adding theme=gay or theme=lgbtq. “If you're thinking of [thing], the proper tag is [tag], not [this tag]” is appropriate for documentation. As you point out LGBTQ venues aren't “gay themed”.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Rorym (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You could use cuisine=irish on an Irish pub if they sell Irish food. A lot do. Anyway, they know the theme tag isn't the cuisine tag because that's what this page is about. So, I don't get where there would be a mix-up. That said, you can always add a slash and a short description after it. Which is still easier to understand then full sentences and is also the standard for how these things are explained. So, just put a slash and something like "different from cuisine because of X" or whatever your point is. That's how it's done everywhere else and so is using short bullet points in the example sections. Re "gay" themed, "gay" or "LGBTQ" or whatever you want to call it isn't a "theme." So it's not an "example" of how to use the tag. Which is the whole point in the "example" section. Also, theme=gay/LGBTQ isn't used at all. The current standard is to only list in articles values that are actually used. As an alternative though, you could change the "Similar tags" sections to "See also" and add a link to gay in it though. So other people know the other tags exists. That's what I would do. Again, it's also the established way of doing things. Hopefully my suggestions are a good compromise. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes “gay” (etc) isn't a theme, but some people might think it is. I put that in there to say “No, use lgbtq=* for that”. Yes, cuisine=irish is for Irish cuisine, but that's not the same.

Raw OSM tag lists without any descriptions, are not as informative as actually including descriptions, right? I suggest documenting, not merely listing tags. Rorym (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would think gay is a theme, because the tag theme=gay has zero uses. If it did then maybe it would need explaining, but there's hundreds or thousands of possible things people "might" think are a theme that aren't and it's not listing them. Unless the tag is being used wrong for those things. So, adding either the gay or lgbtq tags to the see also section is enough IMO. That way people can at least see that there are different tags for that.

While I'm generally fine with documenting things, it's useless to document things that aren't even an issue and therefore don't need to be explained. Generally, articles should be kept as concise and on topic as possible. Re "tag descriptions", I said to use a dash and a short description if that's what you feel like doing, but the description shouldn't come at the cost of readability or understandably, and bullet points are the easiest thing to understand. It's not an either or thing like your making it out be though. Plenty of articles have both. It's also worth mentioning that if you spend to much time describing something that not directly related to "key:theme' then the article isn't even about the key anymore and you just have an easy of random disjointed side thoughts that no one can parse through. Which is an easy place to get to if you don't use establish standards and don't write concisely. If your doing things like including links to the LGBTQ Wikipedia article, it's no longer about describing the theme key at that point. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Adamant1, you recently changed it saying “It's a lot easier if the examples are list form, not full sentences”, but you have removed the examples. After your edit, there is less information on the page. In addition, you removed the list syntax I had added, replacing it with plain indents. Do you not want a list of examples? Rorym (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your talking about since you added back the LBTQ thing how we discussed and that's really all I had removed. Everything else I just formatted differently. So, the article looks fine as it currently is. I don't think need it needs anything else to be explained. As far as the list of examples goes, Irish and maid are the two mainly used. I'm not really sure what the third one, theme=plastic means. Beyond that, the other possibilities are to low in usage to be worth mentioning at this point IMO. Lists of examples aren't meant to be exhaustive. Nor do they need to be. That's what TagInfo is for. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I never added theme=plastic to the wiki page Rorym (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I never said you did. You asked if I wanted a list of examples and I said it was fine as it currently is because the only other example with enough use is theme=plastic. Which isn't worth having an example for. Least of which because it's not a theme for anything. At least not that I know of. I'll probably look into it more at some point to figure out what it is in reference to though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)