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.


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)

Meat Livestock & Seafood and reactions from the other editors...[edit]

Hi Guys, I was just wondering why so many (excuse) "Seafood articles" under Meat have no redirect to this Overview article? So I was thinking of adding a reference in each article to "highlight" the mentioning in this article. Anyway, I guess that was a good lesson for me not do think but better to ask before proceed with any idea I have on Wikipedia. Also using the state=expanded was not a good idea. Sorry for that!

Comments from my Talk page[edit]

Hello there. I'm just wondering about these and other edits:[1][2]

Your edits summary says "...Adding reference to Meat to highlight importance of this article..." but that seems unrelated to what the edit is. Could you please explain? Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You are introducing undue emphasis on meat in articles on seafood. Many people do not regard seafood such as fish as a form of meat. Personally I would not add "meat" templates at the bottom of seafood articles at all. And I certainly wouldn't expand the dubious meat template, leaving the more relevant templates closed. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear... it's much worse than I thought. You are adding "meat" templates to all kinds of general articles on marine life, like dolphin. Many of these are more biology articles than food articles. Please stop. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The reverted articles in detail[edit]

I just copy all the articles which have been reverted from using the "Meat" Template, maybe there should be a discussion about this issue, because I think it does not make sense to remove the relation to this template on any of these Seafood articles, but of course on the other side if these article are not meant to give background information on the topic than it's okay not to mention them. I'm not judging, I just had the idea to add Meat-template to all the articles which are mentioned in this template. Looks like there is some discussion required. Thanks for your comments!

  • Dolphin (not a significant seafood)
  • Crappie (not a significant seafood)
  • Flounder (not appropriate for this article)
  • Haddock (has separate food article) => which one? this template could be updated with that information.
  • Halibut (has a separate food article) => which one? this template could be updated with that information.
  • Herring as food (inappropriate)
  • King mackerel (inappropriate templates) => templates are not static, please change it if something is wrong.
  • Marlin (marlin is not a significant food fish)
  • Sole (fish) (not really a seafood article)
  • Basa fish (no comment on the revert, reverting again and adding reference to this talk)

"Significance", "not appropriate", "inappropriate", "not really seafood article": I'll hope the creator of this template have some arguments for that.

--huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not 100% clear on what is being expressed above, but here's my view: No expand. Remove seafood items from this navbox. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak: Agree on the expand (that was my fault). Why would you remove the seafood items? --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Because the scope of meat should be, well, meat. :) You know, goat, ostrich, elephant, even frog. I think we should draw the line at seafood, unless maybe you want to include sea turtle meat. Also, we have Template:Seafood. Anyhow, that's just my view. I always defer to the community at large. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that is not the point, the Meat article says: "Meat is animal flesh that is eaten as food." so not only for animals walking on the ground, that includes also flying animals and animals in the water and of course the amphibian. I live in Singapore and I've seen turtle meat soup or friends eating monkey beef myself. This is really disgusting (from the view of my lifestyle, culture, not-religion etc.), but "why love one, but eat the other"? But if this part of your lifestyle, culture and maybe religion, why judge these people. Everyone has his own perception. Hope others will join the discussion too. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Good points. I live in China, so we're neighbours! :) I think people here would draw the line at seafood like fish and squid. The exact wording of the meat article doesn't have to relate exactly to the scope of the navbox. My guess is that people would commonly say that turtle meat is meat and fish is fish and not meat. Let's see what others say. I could be wrong. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Here's an idea. Do some (prohibited) original research to determine what we should do: Ask several people to say if the animal is "meat" after you say a word. Then say "cow" "chicken" "goat" "halibut". See if what they say after that last one. I bet they'll say "fish". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I may be wrong. I just did that with one person beside me. The answer was "meat, meat, meat, meat". The explanation I got was that fish is a kind of meat. So, now I don't know. :) We need others to give a view. I will post at the food project asking for views. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I will not comment on this because as you say it's (prohibited) original research and we should stick on things which are written and exist already here in Wikipedia as a reference. The rest is your POV --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


Should seafood be removed from this navbox? In otherwords, is fish meat? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep It's the flesh of an animal, which humans consume. So yes. This is like asking whether a tree is a plant. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 15:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Remove. Even though formally fish flesh is meat, it is rarely meant in this context. Someone looking for meats usually does not think of seafood. As mentioned above, there is a separate Template:Seafood, and it is rather big. If one copies all that stuff into this template, it will be huge. The current version includes a rather arbitrary selection of articles. E.g. "Cuts and preparation" includes Salumi, but does not include Charcuterie, Lunch meat. It includes Haggis, but not Black pudding, Boudin etc. If one makes it properly, the only solution would be to restrict it to very general overview articles. Instead, restricting this template to "usual meat" will allow its proper coverage. --Off-shell (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oxford dictionary: Meat - The flesh of an animal, typically a mammal or bird, as food (the flesh of domestic fowls is sometimes distinguished as poultry). Note, there is also a separate Template:Poultry. Are there any cookbooks which include fish recipes in their meat chapters (and do not call these chapters "Meat and Fish")? --Off-shell (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe that this debate is getting into cultural differences that at least partially stem from religion. Not the best source for this but it will explain some of the issues: http://mentalfloss.com/article/56205/why-isnt-fish-considered-meat-during-lent While the distinction between land vs. sea animals is not restricted to just those mentioned it isn't universal either. PETA considers fish to be meat as well: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vegetarian-inmate-says-he-was-told-fish-isnt-meat/ . Meat is often defined as the flesh of an animal; fish are clearly animals; therefore seafood is logically meat regardless of whatever culture or religious traditions hold; though noting the cultural and/or religious differences may be appropriate. Falconjh (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Remove (with a qualification) – Rcsprinter is correct that the most broad use of the term "meat" is to refer to the flesh of an animal. In that sense, fish is technically a kind of meat. But in practice the term "meat" more typically refers to the flesh of terrestrial animals, rather than marine or aquatic ones (there is also a tendency to refer to the flesh of marine mammals as meat, as in whale meat). The English language is structured somewhat differently depending on whether you are referring to the flesh of a terrestrial animal or a marine one. The flesh of marine animals are usually referred to by using the name of the animal itself. Thus we might ask at a dinner table, "Would you like some more fish/crab/lobster?". But we would not usually ask, "Would you like some some more cow/sheep/pig?". Instead, we use special words for the flesh of terrestrial animals (beef, pork, mutton). Again, at the dinner table, no one is likely to quibble if you ask, "Would you like the meat or the fish?" In the places I have lived there is natural separation between butchers and fishmongers, between meat shops and fish shops. Fish shops usually include seafood generally, such as prawns, crabs and lobsters. You do not usually go to a meat shop if you want to buy seafood or to a fish shop if you want to buy beef. Historically, Catholics avoided meat during Lent but ate fish, since fish was not regard as a meat. In my view there should be, as there is now, two separate templates, one for {{seafood}} and one for {{meat}}. The meat template should not include specific articles on fish and other seafoods, apart perhaps from including the main articles (seafood and fish as food) with a comment that these are sometimes regarded as a form of meat. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep - as was pointed out, meat is the flesh of an animal, fish are animals, therefore the flesh of a fish is meat. Also, in discussing the terminology on connection to the meat of terrestrial animals, User:Epipelagic neglected chicken, duck, dove, or pretty much any consumable bird meat, frog legs, turtle, alligator, or among mammals, there are no "special words" for the meat of rabbit, kangaroo, bear, lamb, goat, horse, or other less-often eaten mammals. Therefore, the argument that mammals are "meat" due to associated distinctive terminology is not convincing. - Boneyard90 (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
But what you say is not true. Poultry is the term used for birds intended for consumption "chicken, duck, dove, or pretty much any consumable bird meat". Nearly all commonly eaten terrestrial animal groups have special words" for their meat. And there are many other points, apart from this one, which you didn't counter. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
An example might be supermarket departments where there are "meat" and "fish" sections. The meat section will contain poultry too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
regarding the subject of terminology; that is an artifact of English, in 1066 A.D. William of France became the King of England via conquest, and English nobility became largely French and French-speaking; while those that cared for the animals remained Anglo-Saxon, so two sets of words developed, while for things that were just peasantry only one set of words, see List of English words with dual French and Anglo-Saxon variations; so it has nothing to do with fish actually being 'meat' or not. Falconjh (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I will address three points brought up in User:Epipelagic's counter-argument. (1) On terminology, the remark about poultry is not accurate. I sit down to a plate of fried chicken, not "fried poultry"; when I hunt dove, I have dove breasts with gravy, not "poultry and gravy"; and at Thanksgiving, there's a 23-pound turkey on the table, not a 23-pound "roasted poultry". (2) Sure Catholics draw a line between "meat" and fish", but I can point out that Buddhists have counted rabbits as birds, in the past, to get around a proscription against eating the meat of mammals. Religions, and their practitioners, frequently flaunt logic. That doesn't mean we have to follow their example. (3) As for the templates, I would say that the categories of seafood and meat overlap. Fish is both meat and seafood. Beef is meat, but not seafood. And sea grapes are seafood, but not meat. - Boneyard90 (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Good points. Hmmmm, maybe you're right. Hmmmmmm.... Well, it's still a pretty bloated template, and that's a reason to remove seafood, but I do see what you mean. Actually, I'm fine either way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. But even the idea of "bloated" is pretty subjective. Compared to other projects I work with, this is very reasonable. Take a look at Template:People of the Sengoku period. They won't even let me pare down that monstrosity. - Boneyard90 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Remove - Strict logic aside, shouldn't we use common sense and just ask ourselves what the average visitor expects to see in a navbox called "meat"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep - There are certainly problems with the term Meat, which comes from: Food my arguments to keep are up. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment - The "Cuts and preparation" is all about meat. The theme of this navbox seems to be not fish. Maybe we could add seafood to the related items group at the end? Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep and Huh?, yes, "seafood" is just another name for kinds of animal corpses. There are lots of names for corpses of animals which are then prepared as food for humans, and "seafood" is one of them which actually covers a lot of territory (literally). Randy Kryn 11:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Remove My understanding is that templates like this (ones providing navigation between articles that fall under a broader subject/umbrella term) should only appear on articles that are listed in the template. That's why I removed the templates from basa fish. If the templates are going to appear on the article on basa, then basa should also be added to the templates. Also, there are probably a thousand species that are used as seafood. A template that includes every marine fish consumed by humans will be extremely unwieldy. I'm not sure where to draw the line on what to include in the seafood template, but I don't basa would make the cut (List of commercially important fish species could be used as a starting point for what to include). I've no strong opinion on any linguistic distinction between meat and seafood, but I don't think both templates should appear on articles that aren't listed in either template. It should be possible to transclude the seafood template into the meat template (basically treating seafood as a subtopic of meat) if people want to go that route. Plantdrew (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I see basa is listed in the meat template (but not the seafood one). Still, I question whether it is important enough to list there without opening the door to another couple hundred fish. And my point still stands about needing to appear in the template; seafood template shouldn't be added to basa unless basa is also added to the seafood template. Plantdrew (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruption: Huggi is reformating and deleting other peoples edits in this poll. He/she has also provocatively reformatted the {{meat}} template, promoting seafood to the top position and expanding the seafood entries. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Epipelagic I think you are highlighting on negativity rather than improve the situation. If you watch the log than you see that everything started with a mistake from talk a few hours ago (I corrected that). Then again my vote was changed to a comment, which I tryed to change again. And also for the records, I try to improve the template by ordering it alphabetic. Better help to improve than being an angry bird, stay cool! :) --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Then I suggest you step back from being such a busybody Huggi. Stop refactoring and deleting other people's edits, and stop making such provocative changes elsewhere while the poll is underway. You did much more than just "improve the template by ordering it alphabetic". --Epipelagic (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That's your perception Epipelagic, but thanks for your advise anyway. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That's not my "perception". It's the facts of what you are actually doing. And don't thank me for my "advise" when you don't seem to be listening. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Huggi, please don't refactor others' comments here and please return seafood to where it was until this discussion has concluded. It certainly should not be at the top and moving it there complicates things. Thanks for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak well I'll guess it all started because of your edits yesterday :) I'm *not* refactor others' comments, reverting the edits now, no problem with that.
Epipelagic I'm working on improvement :)
You're right about the first refactoring. I made this edit by mistake and you kindly fixed it. However, after that, you have at least once refactored. Anyhow, not a big deal. Let's move on and not refactor. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. Anna Frodesiak, just look at the edits from Plantdrew exactly the same happens to him, so I moved the coments and as Epipelagic correctly pointed, that I removed some parts, but that was not my intention. No hard feelings on this. Let's all have a good sunday than :) --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, can we agree that this poll shows that there will be no consensus to remove the seafood group at this time? Should we end this to prevent the future wasting community time on this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought the consensus of informed opinion was decidedly to remove the group. I suppose the group could remain if there was agreement that seafood articles which already have the {{seafood}} template should not be additionally plastered with the {{meat}} template. Also, as it stands, the seafood entries on the meat template are poorly considered. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Informed opinion? I resemble those remarks. End the discussion, per Anna Frodesiak. Randy Kryn 21:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Does the extent of your informed opinion extend beyond your contribution that "seafood is just another name for kinds of animal corpses". --Epipelagic (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The definition of meat refers to preparing and eating the flesh of animals, and Wikipedia's own page on Fish define them as "gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals". The infobox on the Fish page lists their scientific classification as Animalia. The Meat page here is surprisingly lax on including seafood as meat, and seems to concentrate on mammals. That doesn't mean it's correct to leave seafood out of that article, or that the template should reflect that non-neutral coverage of the overall topic. Randy Kryn 21:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Many traditions do not consider fish to be a "meat". In any case, seafood covers much more than just fish. I suggest you read the article. It can include seaweeds and other plants and algae. Even bacteria, like spirulina. It includes things like jellyfish and roe. And as for your mistaken contention that "seafood is just another name for kinds of animal corpses", some seafood is eaten when it is alive. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Epipelagic is right here. I mean, what is the strength of the arguments for keep? Basically that fish is a subset of meat. Well, arguments for remove refute that and include:

  • We make a distinction and separation between meat and fish:
  • with airline meal choices
  • at supermarket sections
  • by having fish mongers and butchers
  • in cookbooks
  • We already have a seafood template.
  • Meat template is already bloated.
  • Catholics allow meat but not fish.
  • Oxford dictionary Oxford dictionary definition: "...Meat - The flesh of an animal, typically a mammal or bird, as food (the flesh of domestic fowls is sometimes distinguished as poultry)...".

Here are new arguments too:

  • Article visitors would not expect seafood to be present, I contend.
  • If you say you're going to buy some meat and return and drop a fish on the table and say "meat", you might get a response like "that's not meat". :)
  • Hypothetically, if there were a seafood template containing only seafood and a meat template containing only meat, and we added both to red snapper, my guess is that someone would remove the meat template, not on the grounds that snapper isn't in the meat template, but because it's not meat! It's fish!

So, I suggest the "keepers" concede and let's remove the section. If not, this could become an RfC, where it would almost certainly end with "remove". Why? Because the "remove" arguments are many and the "keep" arguments few. So, what do the "keepers" say? I'll remove it unless you strongly object, in which case a likely RfC will follow. I await your silence or permission to remove. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to add seafood and fish as food to the {{meat}} template as "related subjects". And would not the "related subjects" group be better named as "related topics"? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
That's a great compromise and a sensible thing to do. Can we go ahead and do that? This has been a lot of keystrokes for something not that huge. So, yes? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with the arguments of Anna Frodesiak, except the Oxford dictionary. The rest is very subjective, specially the one about Catholics. If you ever have to chance to talk to a Hindu you will understand what I mean. But I don't wanna write about religions as this discussion should be 100% Non-denominational. But let's go ahead and put this in practice. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC) (wish WP would auto-sign every post *dreaming*)
Well, maybe we should do an Rfc on this then. Fish, lobsters, crabs, crayfish, etc., are surely animals, and thus their bodies are animal bodies that some people eat. That is the definition of "meat". As I said, the Meat article is very lax in including these animals, a mistake which shouldn't be repeated within the template. It seems the Wikipedia definition of plant-based diet may have directly changed the definition of the term to include meat, and now the definition of meat itself is being pulled back to not include seafood animals. Because of the real-world effect of Wikipedia choices this really shouldn't be decided by a handful of editors who have engaged here, and a wider audience should discuss the question. Thanks for suggesting that as an option. Randy Kryn 3:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Do an Rfc then. I notice in the concluding remarks of the "Remove" position, several arguments are brought up that I believe I refuted (topical overlap, religious position, etc), and several more are simply interpretations of how the editor thinks other people think ("Article visitors will not expect..."), which is always a weak argument and usually the tactic of an editor with few facts to support his or her position, and finally there's the remarks that are either subjective (the template is not "bloated"), condescending ("informed opinion"?) or looking for the quick way out ("suggest the keepers concede"). The "remove" position has no facts and only the argument that they want to remove seafood because ... they want to. And we should just let it happen. If the "Keep" position doesn't wish to concede, then there is no consensus on removal. - Boneyard90 (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Ooooooh you keepers! Smile.svg Actually, I won't be heartbroken if the seafood groups stays in. This is not a big deal either way. Love and respect to all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Whatever we may disagree on, I have to say that Anna Frodesiak is quite the civil editor. I hope we come to a mutually amicable conclusion. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Boneyard90. :) Thank you, my friend. I'm sure it will all work out. There are sensible arguments on both sides, so if the groups stays or goes, it cannot be a huge mistake either way. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Input: Links to related articles-feature[edit]

In the meantime User:Off-shell corrected other articles which use the "Links to related articles" with something like this: {{Navboxes|list1= {{chicken}} {{poultry}} {{Meat}} }}

I didn't take to much attention on this. But not sure if there is a way to use this in a template? Thanks! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

crododile & alligator[edit]

Crocodile is in "Poultry and game" section, while alligator is in "Fish and seawood" section. Does that mean crocodile is a land animal and alligator a water animal?
There's an article about alligator meat, while there's not much of crocodile as food, only a picture caption and this: crocodile meat is also considered a delicacy in crocodile#Crocodile products. (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)