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)