There are obviously concerns that this tag provides no additional detail on the type of ruins that are involved, but it is fairly widely used, which suggests that there is a place for it.
I have changed the text to emphasise that this option should only be used when it is not possible to provide any more detail.
- Hi, I do not agree with your changes, the wording of this tag's description has been for a long time : "Remains of a castle or alike, usage was abandoned." or "Remains of structures that were once complete, but have fallen into partial or complete disrepair."
- It as been used by several people with those description. I do agree that this is not a perfect description, but changing it after use will result in more mess about what those tags mean.
- Also you added that the tagging of ruins=yes is prefered but there was no discussion, no consensus and you don't even mention by who it was "prefered". Discussion before changes is welcome here : Talk:Proposed_features/ruins (Also I noticed you allready have commented, and I'll go there to express my point of view) sletuffe 23:38, 9 May 2011 (BST)
- The difficulty I am trying to address is that there are several different ways of tagging something like a historic ruined castle: "historic=castle,ruins=yes", "historic=ruined_castle", "historic=ruins, ruintype=castle" (with variants). There are arguments for and against each format, and in the current structure of the wiki different options are recommended in different places. When I look at the data itself, the form "historic=castle, ruins=yes" seems to be the most widely used. In that sense it is "preferred" (i.e. by the majority of contributors). I don't have a preference myself, and even if I did it's not for me to force it onto others. However, if "historic=ruins" is defined in the way that it was, the implication is that the recommended form is "historic=ruins, ruintype=castle". While I recognise that some prefer this form, I know that others don't. It is good to that individual contributors are informed of their options, but not good if they are faced with confusing definitions and conflicting guidance. So I changed this to something which I felt reflected the actual usage more precisely. Perhaps it would have been better if I had explained this in the form "I have changed the text to emphasise that this option should only be used ON ITS OWN when it is not possible to provide any more detail". My intent was to clarify, not to change, the meaning. --Peter Reed 10:49, 10 May 2011 (BST)