Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of vegans

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 12:08, 20 May 2012 (Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Talk:List of vegans/Archive 2.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:08, 20 May 2012 by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Talk:List of vegans/Archive 2.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9


This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Sourcing policy

The policy can be read at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. This allows self-published sources in articles such as this (see the section SELFPUB), as follows:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
  1. the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

Names needing sources

Please list here names missing or removed from the page because of poor sourcing, then tick when the name is restored.

A short list

  • Tom Lenk of Buffy fame has stated he his on his way to full fledged veganism and has not consumed animal products for over a year

Sources = http://www.vegtv.com/videolist_celebrities.htm / http://www.animal-lib.org.au/interviews/uri/

Discuss.

I wouldn't trust Uri Geller. He advocated veganism in The Vegan Society's first film 'Truth or Dairy' (1994), yet ate yoghurt on a live breakfast TV programme not long after (causing the Society considerable embarrassment).

96.224.202.145 02:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)RussellSimmons

he is also a vegan if you checked his episode of cribs (mtv) he tells you that and he does yoga

Ted Danson

I deleted Ted Danson from this list because the source quoted mentions that he eats fish

Suggestions

I've taken a look at the some of the latest featured lists, and I've put together three suggestions (see User:SlimVirgin/tables), the first two incorporating images of the people alongside their entry, where one exists. We could still run a series of larger images down the side of the page if we wanted to.

The first table wouldn't allow section editing, though it's good because the names and countries are sortable in alphabetical order. But no section editing would lead to edit conflicts and would be hard on machines with less memory. The second suggestion retains the table and images, but would present each country in its own section as now.

The beauty of these is that templates are kept to a minimum, so they should be relatively easy to load and edit. I would be quite interested in working on this over time to get it to FL status, if anyone is willing to help. Any thoughts?

SlimVirgin 00:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the pictures make the page size a little on the large size? Both in download and scrolling terms. I don't think it should be split by country, to me that makes no more sense than splitting it in to something like age groups. The one with the little flags looks okay, perhaps with occupation also sortable. Muleattack (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You could be right about the images, but it does look good (I took it from a featured list, List of amphibians of Michigan). But I'd be fine with any of the suggestions. My only concern is that the first and third options remove section-editing. I'm thinking we should make the page easy to edit for new editors, because these list articles are often an entry point into Misplaced Pages. SlimVirgin 01:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Muleattack and I have already decided on a table format which we were both happy with at Talk:List_of_vegans/Temp#Table_example. It is a shame it has taken you half a year to come around but like Muleattack I oppose having images in the table, I oppose division by nationality, and I support sorting of occupation. Pretty much like Muleattack and I decided in the table we drafted out. But I am no longer willing to discuss editing decision with you without meditiation. I have started a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_vegans, and will only discuss further changes at the DR board now. The only reason I am commenting here is so you cannot claim a consensus over Muleattack's objections. If you undertake any more changes without engaging at DR board, I will take the case up at the administrator board since DR is compelling, as you well know being an admin. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Here are some thoughts that I had while looking at your examples:
- It's amazing what images can do for a list. The little images in your examples would make the list so much more pleasant to look through. If we could find a way to make that work, it would be great.
- The vertical size of each entry will be increased if we add the images, so more scrolling will be required, but, because the list is alphabetized and will have sorting options, I think this is a minor issue. Especially when we take into consideration how much more pleasant the images will make the list.
- How much will little thumbnail images like these increase page loading time? (Keep in mind that the list is going to be expanding at a pretty rapid rate.)
- Are we likely to have trouble finding images that won't be deleted by the image police for alleged copyright violation?
- The entries in your examples have just one reference each and the appearance is cleaner and more appealing that way. However, having several references for each entry to show current diet status, and even past status, has proven to be very useful for keeping entries on the list and for settling disputes. Perhaps we can have a section below the list for all of the extra ref links, or maybe even a separate page for all of the extra refs to help keep the list page cleaner and loading faster?
- Do we really need/want to list country of origin for something like this? Is there perhaps some more appropriate piece of information we could put in that column? --Andomedium (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, these are my own two preferences below. Of the two, I prefer Suggestion 1 without the section headers, because it looks neater. However, I think we would run into trouble without section headers -- the page might be slow to load with lots of names on it, and there would be more edit conflicts.
If we are going to have section headers (see Suggestion 2), the ones that make most sense are country of origin, because it's the only thing that's stable. A person's occupation can change and can be ambiguous.
As for whether the small images (and they would have to be freely licensed, so not every entry would have one) would slow things down too much, I have no idea. The fewer templates we have on the page, the faster the load time. How much a lot of images will add, I don't know. Perhaps we should start creating the page on a subpage to see how it works out? It would be a lot of work to do that, but we could do it slowly over time.
As for having one footnote after each name to keep it neat, I agree. But remember that we can have multiple references within each footnote, between one set of ref tags, so we can have the best of both worlds.
Example:
<ref>, caroljadams.com, accessed 2 September 2011.
*Hutchinson, Jane and Field, Melissa. , ''The Daily Telegraph'', 20 May 2007.</ref>
Produces:
And you can do this with citation templates too, simply by placing them between just one set of ref tags. SlimVirgin 03:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info about combining refs. No objection from me. Was just listing some thoughts. Do you know if there are many of these lists that have images? If so we could combine the source text of several lists into one list to see how a really large list with images behaves. --Andomedium (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion 1

Name Country of origin Occupation Image Source
Carol J. Adams United States Eco-feminist writer
Andrew Günsberg Australia Radio and television presenter File:Andrewg.jpg

Suggestion 2

Australia

Name Occupation Image Source
Andrew Günsberg Radio and television presenter File:Andrewg.jpg

United States

Name Occupation Image Source
Carol J. Adams Eco-feminist writer
  1. "Carol J. Adams", caroljadams.com, accessed 2 September 2011.
  2. "Carol J. Adams", caroljadams.com, accessed 2 September 2011.
  3. Hutchinson, Jane and Field, Melissa. "Cooking with the stars", The Daily Telegraph
  4. Hutchinson, Jane and Field, Melissa. "Cooking with the stars", The Daily Telegraph
  5. "Carol J. Adams", caroljadams.com, accessed 2 September 2011.
If pictures aren't available for some people then they will have far less prominence in the list than others. I really don't think pictures are a good idea even though it does look nice. Muleattack (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The vegetarians who aren't yet on the list have far less prominence than those who are on the list.
Should we remove the ones who are on the list to keep things fair until we're ready to add them all?
My point being that we shouldn't refrain from adding content for one person just because that same content isn't yet available for another.
As is stated at the top of the page, "this is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness".
For the people who don't yet have an image available, we can insert an "Image Needed" placeholder image.
Hopefully, over time, editors will add images for the people who don't yet have them.
In the mean time, at least some of the people will have images (quite a few actually).
Also, keep in mind that we already have images to the right of the list that give greater prominence to a few people, so it's not exactly a new concept. --Andomedium (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could set up a subpage at Talk:List of vegans/draft and start slowly creating the table. I would suggest trying it with images to begin with, and section headers with country of origin (to allow section editing). And if it doesn't look good for some reason, we can move things around once we have the basic table in place. SlimVirgin 17:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I noticed that the List of vegetarians has a category declaration for having "inconsistent citation formats". To archive FL quality is this something that needs to be dealt with? Should we decide on an ideal citation format and convert all existing citations to that format? Is that permitted? --Andomedium (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm currently working on adding the tables here. Feel free to move the draft to a different location if you prefer. --Andomedium (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that that you were making changes to the article so I put the table work on hold until you're finished. While waiting I wrote a program that will do the table work for us so just let me know when you're ready and I'll make a draft here. --Andomedium (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi sorry, I didn't see these posts when I posted here yesterday. Yes, these are great ideas -- if you can automate the process that will save a huge amount of time. Please proceed as you see fit; the only thing to note is that we probably need to retain section editing to fulfill the FL criteria, so we can't have one long table without subsections, and country of birth seems the most obvious one because it isn't going to change.
Agreeing on a common citation style is a good idea too; see the last section on this page that I started yesterday. SlimVirgin 16:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC to remove the colour-coding

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was to remove the colour-coding. Many thanks to everyone who commented. SlimVirgin 17:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Page format seems an odd thing to have an RfC over, but we can't reach agreement, so fresh input would be helpful. I would like to try to bring the page to featured-list quality, so the formatting isn't a trivial issue.

The issue is that the article is colour-coded, so that each name has a special colour next to it depending on that person's profession. It does look nice, but it's making the page harder to edit. I've tried removing it but I've been reverted twice, so here's my reasoning:

  • (1) The colours make section editing awkward, because you constantly have to check at the top of the page to see which colour to add to any given name. This means you have to edit the whole page (and it's slow to load), or else have two windows open, which feels like overkill when all you want to do is pop in a name. The colours aren't clickable next to the names, so they don't inform the reader anyway (unless she looks at the legend at the top). The need to add different colours makes the list more fiddly for newbies, and as lists are often an entry point into editing WP, that's an additional strike against.
  • (2) The templates that the colour coding requires are adding to load time. This is already slow because of the 200-300 citation templates, so it would be good not to slow it down even further. With the colour coding it is taking me 20-30 seconds to load the page, and using preview or diffs is even slower, so editing it has not been easy.

Therefore, although I do like the appearance of the colours, I would like to remove them, then resume the discussion about how else we can organize and prettify the page (e.g. by creating tables) so we can bring the page up to featured-list quality.

  • Support removal. SlimVirgin 04:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal. I don't believe that the colours are a useful way of applying categories. The categories should be placed in the tables (using their text descriptions) so that they can be sorted and identified easily and immediately for a subject. The removal should also apply to List of vegetarians, and this RfC should be mentioned on that talk page. GFHandel ♬  04:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless alternative is to change to Talk:List of vegans/Temp format, specifically the Active vegans format. Also, the colors aren't what's causing the slow load times, but all of the images in the article. Silverseren 04:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal. As an online encyclopedia for adults who know how to read, we should predominantly use words, not colour coding. --John (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal. The information about each individual is there in the text and is direct. It seems difficult to keep track of the somewhat arbitrary colour-codes when halfway down the page. The images are fine but not absolutely necessary. Mathsci (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Visually distracting, and consequently confusing. It is non essential for the delivery of information...Modernist (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal. The categories seem to be rather arbitrary, many people don't fit into a single category. So makes more sense to just use a text description. --Vclaw (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Certainly put me off editing here as it seems fiddly.RafikiSykes (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal, but consider categorizing the persons at the same time. Ultimately this article should be replaced entirely by category data on the individual biographical articles. Wnt (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal. The color-coding is almost not useful at all. Its best aspect is that it makes the list look a bit more polished. If removing the color-coding will make it easier to add names to the list and speed up page loading, it should be removed.
Additional reasons/details:
1. The color-coding system unnecessarily encourages the overly-simplified categorizing of complex people. There are people who are equally writers and activists or equally musicians and television personalities, but they are being color-coded as one or the other. Those people may not like being color-coded this way and it's not necessary for us to do so. It may even cause delays when an editor has to ponder which color would be best.
2. Because there are so few colors to use, we have a single color being used for multiple professions/labels. We have activist, politician and business person all using the color blue. This isn't quite so bad on the list of vegans where each name has parenthesized details next to it, but on the list of vegetarians it's pretty silly. --Andomedium (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal. For accessibility reasons, color should never be used to convey key information when this can be avoided. Some people are color-blind, after all. And in fact this is codifed at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color, to wit: "Articles that use color should keep accessibility in mind... Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information... Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Misplaced Pages through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information... Some readers of Misplaced Pages are partially or fully color blind. Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level. and preferably AAA level..." (whether this article passes the WCAG standard I don't know). Herostratus (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - "... Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information..." appears to be met. The people listed have their occupation listed to the right of their name in text. Also, we probably don't need {{Overcolored}} on the article while this discussion is ongoing. 2 possible uses of that template might be 1)to get someone to boldy fix the problem which we are discussing here already or 2)to get a discussion going about the problem...which we already have. I don't think we need the template there.--Rockfang (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal as non-useful decoration. --Michig (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal. More decorative than useful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm struggling to find an example of a list that uses color in a similar manner. On another note, is nationality the best way to sort here? NickCT (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - listing profession after the name is fair enough to give context, but I'm not sure we need to use a visually distracting way to categorise them as well. If occupation is important enough to be colour-coded, why not use these groups as the top-level headings instead of naitonalirt? Andrew Gray (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal. It doesn't serve any purpose as far as I can tell --PnakoticInquisitor 22:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal Net effect of the colours is to make the page look like Trivial Pursuit. Readers can figure out what field a person is in by reading what their field is - the colours add nothing at all to the list's value. Collect (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Combining the lists

Should we combine the List of vegans and the List of vegetarians into a single list of vegans and vegetarians? List pros and cons below. Here's a rough example of the sort of arrangement I had in mind if we decide to combine lists. --Andomedium (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Pros

  • Will no longer have to move an entry (or image of an entry) from one list to the other if their diet changes. Just make minor text changes instead. --Andomedium (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Will no longer lose vegetarian refs as we currently do whenever we move an entry from the list of vegetarians to the list of vegans. Keeping past refs provides people with more information about each entry to help them determine whether or not the entry's current status (vegan, vegetarian, former vegan, etc) is appropriate, and can help settle disputes before they even start. Some of the refs contain links to archived versions of pages that no longer exist and it's a real shame to lose those as they may be useful in the future as evidence that a particular person was at one point vegetarian or vegan. --Andomedium (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Won't have to deal with people adding vegans to the list of vegetarians because they don't know there's a list of vegans, & vice versa. --Andomedium (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Won't have duplicate entries. For example, we currently have Natalie Portman on the list of vegetarians and on the list of vegans as a former vegan. --Andomedium (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Researchers won't need to search through two different pages when researching notable people who abstain from meat. --Andomedium (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Page style updates won't have to be applied to two different pages. --Andomedium (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Cons

  • The list will be quite large and we may need to make changes (to image size & quality for example) in order to keep the page loading well. --Andomedium (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This kind of goes along with the item above, but if the legend templates stay, adding more people will make the page even slower.--Rockfang (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • When previewing & saving edits or when viewing past revisions, the loading time is currently too long and it's going to get even longer as the list grows. This may be the main reason that the vegan section was removed from the List of vegetarians in the first place. Not only might it be a very bad idea to combine the lists, it might actually be a good idea to further divide the lists using a characteristic such as nationality. --Andomedium (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation styles

The page is a bit of a mix of styles at the moment. I don't mind which we use, but this is what I've been writing in case it's helpful.

For books: Smith, John. Name of Book. Name of Publisher, 2012, p. 1.

Note: We don't need ISBNs and location (though if you want to add them, that's fine).

For newspaper articles: Flood, Alison. "John Kinsella writes of poetry's 'responsibility to bring change'", The Guardian, 14 December 2011.

Note: For newspapers, we don't need access dates, page numbers, name of publisher, or any of the other things the citation templates have parameters for. Access dates are needed only for webpages or articles that have no publication date, or for a webpage that looks as though it might disappear at any minute.

When adding a page from the Internet archive, we don't need the original URL and the archived one, or archive date etc (though, again, if people want to add that, it's fine). It's enough just to substitute the original URL for the archived one.

Hope this helps, SlimVirgin 02:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category: