[Tagging] Nuclear Key

David Murn davey at incanberra.com.au
Sun Apr 3 03:26:39 BST 2011

On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 12:11 +0200, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Am 02.04.2011 11:03, schrieb David Murn:
> > If someone comes up with a proposal, discusses it on mailing lists,
> > emails current users of the tag, casts and finishes a vote, how on earth
> > can you call it wiki-fiddling?
> Yes, but if someone tries to change an existing and working schema with 
> something slightly different - that could be integrated with minor 
> changes into the existing schema - I'll call that wiki fiddling, 
> regardless if a vote was done or not.

If you actively use the tag, you would have received an email explaining
the change.  If you read the talk or tagging lists, you would have seen
a notification of the change.  If you 

> This way we'll have to change each and every tag every year because 
> someone finds the "new and improved" way to do things as the current tag 
> fashion expects him to.

So, even if someone finds a 'new and improved' way of doing things, we
shouldnt change the old ways, because its wiki-fiddling?  There are many
many better examples of fiddling with the wiki than this case.

> *... and I'll especially call it wiki fiddling if the currently widely 
> used tags are removed from the wiki without even keeping a note of the 
> old tags.*

Doesnt the fact that the proposal exists, outlining the change from the
old to new tags, cover the 'note of the old tags' that you ask for?

> Please keep your hands off existing documentation of widely used tags, 
> unless you know exactly what you are doing ...

Because apparently discussing it on lists, discussing with the users of
the tag, etc doesnt cover finding enough people who know what theyre

As much as some people might dislike it, you dont have to be one of the
handful of powers-that-be in the project, to actually make a change, all
you have to do is have the knowledge and occasionally some community

Should all tagging proposals be put through a proposal, a discussion,
RFC and voting stages, and then be passed onto another group of 'people
who know exactly what theyre doing' (but apparently dont use the tag, or
participate in the tagging discussions), so that they can either vote or
veto it?

> P.S.: I have helped to transform the formerly used tagging schema, e.g. 
> man_made=power_wind to the current one because the initial way really 
> lacked a lot of things. The recent change causes a lot of trouble and 
> doesn't add a lot of benefit the way it is done.

I dont remember seeing your name in any of the discussions, and a quick
search through the wiki doesnt find your name linked with power or
generators.  Out of interest, how come its okay for you to transform a
tagging schema, but its not okay for a community-agreed change to the
scheme to take place?  Did your 'transform'ing of the schema get
presented on tagging@ on the power page, or have any voting?  If not,
how can you call this case wiki-fiddling and yours not?


More information about the Tagging mailing list