Template talk:Meat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 

Coloring[edit]

Why is this template white on brown? From WP:Deviations

In general, styles for tables and other block-level elements should be set using CSS classes, not with inline style attributes. This is because the site-wide CSS is more carefully tested to ensure compatibility with a wide range of browsers; it also creates a greater degree of professionalism by ensuring a consistent appearance between articles. Deviations from standard conventions are acceptable where they create a semantic distinction (for instance, the infoboxes and navigational templates relating to The Simpsons use a yellow colour-scheme instead of the customary mauve, to tie in with the dominant colour in the series) but should not be used gratuitously. — WP:Deviations

What has been done is to add "inline style attributes" which override the "site-wide CSS" navbox class. There is no reason to do this, for several reasons (1) "Meat" encompass a wide group of types of meat, and a wide variety of colors, (2) even if it were a single color for meat, there is no reason to believe that color scheme has sufficient color contrast to make it readable (see Wikipedia:COLOR), (3) even if it were readable, we are writing an encyclopedia, not making a marketing brochure, and (4) by overriding the "site-wide CSS" it prevents me (and others) from selecting a personal color scheme with better color contrast (e.g., User:Frietjes/vector.css). If you would like to discuss this further, I can start a thread at WT:Accessibility, so others can comment. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Brown is what we agreed on before. RcsprinterGimme a message 16:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you point me to the discussion? I would like to start a new one if this is the case, since it is conflict with wide consensus per WP:CONLIMITED. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, we had it over email with a now retired user. That was before, but my reasoning is still the same - most meat is, and the color most people associate with meat, is brown. But go ahead, start a new discussion, invite some users. RcsprinterGimme a message 16:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Given that over half the entries are seafood, I don't see that as a good choice. I say we stick with the default so as not to bias toward a single type of meat. Since the discussion is started here, we can point users here. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not possible to achieve a consensus decision by email, and if that's all there was then there is absolutely no "what we agreed on before". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Good thinking adding the seafood image - makes it a lot more not biased. The thing is that blue just really doesn't fit meat. RcsprinterGimme a message 16:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The current problem is nothing to do with whether it fits red meat - the problem is that there should be no hard-coded colors at all (ie no inline style attributes) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to change it back to brown, as it looks more meaty. RcsprinterGimme a message 16:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
And I'm changing it back. Childish actions shouldn't trump consensus. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 16:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually I see someone beat me to it. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 16:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
And he won't be doing it again, at least not for the next week! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Livestock and "Preparation Methods"[edit]

  1. I changed the term Mammals/Farm Animals to "Livestock". As someone else pointed out, "Mammals" is an inaccurate term, as deer is a mammal but in the Game section. I thought the term "Farm Animals" sounded a little on the kindergarten side and like it should include chickens and turkeys, which are poultry. According to the Wikipedia article, Livestock seems to fit what's in the category: farm-raised mammals, and does not include poultry or farm-raised fish.
  2. I also think we should remove the terms bacon, ham, and veal from the Livestock section. Veal is a type of beef (though I can see the argument for leaving it where it is). Bacon and ham are prepared sections of pork. I'm thinking bacon and ham should be removed to Cooking Methods, which should be re-labelled Preparation Methods. Thoughts? Boneyard90 (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. A go ahead from me on all those, there. Rcsprinter (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support "Livestock" - definitely sounds good. Moving bacon etc to "Preparation Methods" is probably fine too - certainly on objection -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Done and Done. I decided to move Veal next to Beef, as it has the same relationship as Lamb and Mutton. Cooking Methods is re-labelled Cuts / Preparations, and I put all items in that section in alphabetical order, as things like Steak, Ham, and Burgers can be considered either-or.
No, I don't think they should be removed, as it is a cooking method, is it not? Rcsprinter (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
According to the articles, "Pepperoni is a type of salami", and "Salami is a dried sausage". Therefore, if Sausage is listed on the template, then that would offset the need to list specific types of sausages. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a {{sausage}} template or something? Rcsprinter (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a {{salami}} template, but it isn't that large. It could be expanded to become a "sausage" template? Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
That would be very cool. Afraid I don't know too much about sausage, I'm more of a bacon man, myself. Couldn't be too hard to turn it from a salami to a sausage template. I'd be happy to help however I can though. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't mind doing that, as there is other types of sausage. Rcsprinter (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC) I have considered this for some months, and went ahead and changed it (someone already changed it to sausage, i added some stuff). Others may feel we need more varieties listed. i chose varieties that were either very well known, or well sourced.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Fish and seafood[edit]

Someone removed the links to the group header Fish and seafood. If fish and seafood are to be included on the template at all, which is debatable, then Fish and seafood should be linked, as these are the main articles. I can't find anything in guidelines to suggest that group headers should not be linked on templates, so what rationale can there be for removing them? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

To make it uniform with all the others, which aren't linked. Only the actual foods themselves, not the categories, need linking. Rcsprinter (warn) @ 15:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
You can add a link to the top using the |above= Attribute. That would probably be better. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 16:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
These edits by Jeremy seem to be fine. Rcsprinter (talk) @ 17:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)