Talk:Key:contact:booking

Naming of the key

The way this tag is named makes it sound like it's supposed to be used for contact details of the particular places booking office. When in fact, it's being used as a dump for booking.com URLs. Not only is that usage massively misleading, people are already adding booking.com URLs with website:booking=*. Well I don't think that is a better way to do it, at least it makes it clear that the the tag is for a website. So if no one objects I'm just going to depreciate this and maybe re-tag instances of it as website:booking=* instead. Although I also wonder if people should be mapping booking.com URLs in the first place, but that's a different issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Adamant1. The naming of this key has 2 issues, as I see it: 1.) In most cases it is a website URL, not a direct contact information. 2.) It is a generic term and doesn't make recognizable that it is used for only one commercial provider. – Because of that I think a different naming should be found and the key should be deprecated for this usage. – Would a period "." in the key name be okay? Like website:booking.com or url:booking.com?

And of course it's another topic to talk about what information can or should be mapped at all. --Chris2map (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't "website" imply it's an official website, while the dotcom site isn't?

There are now about 200 values. Most are about the dotcom site. I'd either remove them or move them to something with ".com" in the tag. In any case, I'd delete Key:contact:booking. --99 tabazan (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this tag should stay as is. This is exactly the same as contact:facebook=* and all other social media sites. There is clearly a demand for a tag where one can link Booking.com. I see where the potential confusion, but there are zero instances of anybody use *:booking.com. So its too late to change this imho. Lets just make the page clear this is the only tag for Booking.com, and just never include it in iD. And once a reservation website tag becomes de facto/approved add that to iD so people are not confused. Zimtschnecke (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It is more like Key:contact:phone as there is https://phone.com about something else. Also, isn't the company called booking.com rather than just booking (unlikely facebook)? Neither this nor contact:booking.com are (or had been) much used by the later seems less problematic. 99 tabazan (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

There is no reason to blanked revert my changes tho! I did not removed the controversial banner? I just cleaned up the page a bit and made it clear that this is about Booking.com, so people don't use this instead of website:reservation/website:booking. Zimtschnecke (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I modified it some more to make it clear this is disputed, hope you are happy now. Zimtschnecke (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The company for Facebook is called Meta, so contact:facebook is exactly the same as contact:booking imho. People will tag Booking.com links, so might as well be this tag, instead of creating another new tag. Zimtschnecke (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm probably missing something, but what makes you think that it's similar to Facebook? Even the logo you added has ".com".

Nothing would really be lost if we decide to move it. --99 tabazan (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I would personally be fine with renaming this key, but only if all entires would be bulk moved. Otherwise we just end up with one more extra key: https://xkcd.com/927/ -- Zimtschnecke (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The values might not be moveable in bulk (they are about booking websites, phones numbers or that .com website; basically highlighting the problem of this key). I'd go with the usual approach of creating a correct tag and and eventually deprecating this one. --99 tabazan (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)