Talk:Rental namespace standardisation

Misleading page name

The page content is about different ways to tag rental services, not about namespace standardisation in general. Please move the page. --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it ok if we move this to your User:Rtfm namespace, e.g. User:Rtfm/Rental namespace standardisation? If not, I will edit it to have a neutral point of view. --Jeisenbe (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

In support of using namespaces

I support the tagging scheme using namespaces e.g., {object}:rental=yes/no. It's a concise tagging, without requiring the semicolon delimiter. It also allows for the negative to be tagged (i.e., rentals NOT available). I can't think of a better option than this. Broadly I think there needs to be some consensus on this topic as I'm sure developers are left scratching their head how to identify what rentals are and are not available at a given location. Leaving these thoughts here in the talk page for future discussions. -Osmedit (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

This is created by a blocked user. It's not meaningful to discuss here.
*:rental=* is used with shop=* , thus requiring the shop=* + *=* to be defined first. It's not as extensible as rental:*=* / service:*:rental=*
—— Kovposch (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)