Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast
|Main page||Article assessment||Article collaboration||Article alerts||Project templates||Members||Talk page|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Breakfast page.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|WikiProject Breakfast||(Rated Project-class)|
See also: /Flow archive
|Threads older than 90 days days may be archived by.|
- 1 Article collaboration
- 2 New Member & Article Collaboration
- 3 Article assessment
- 4 Is anyone in this project involved in article assessment?
- 5 Added gallery to project page
- 6 Yellow boxes not floating and this is a problem
- 7 Price of breakfast foods going up?
- 8 Candy
- 9 WikiProject X is live!
- 10 Notice: Data loss and recovery
- 11 Joe's Special
- 12 Comments requested on how to present health effects of breakfast
- 13 Hot articles section anyone?
- 14 Article alerts
- 15 Portal?
- 16 WikiProject Breakfast Project maintaintance
Hi. Wikipedia:WikiProject Breakfast/Article collaboration seems a bit dead, but it might be a nice idea to collaboratively get the breakfast article to featured article status. WikiProject Breakfast currently only has one featured article (maple syrup). MZMcBride (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- MZMcBride: It might be nice, but sadly the article has been tagged for improvement, which makes some of us disinclined to edit it. I feel excessive tagging is one of the chief reasons we have editor retention problems, so I don't like to risk encouraging anyone to think they're doing something useful by adding unsightly tags. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
New Member & Article Collaboration
My name is Carmen and I am currently enrolled in a class at American University that specifically focuses on Wikipedia practices. My current assignment is to pick a WikiProject to participate in and I am very interested in WikiProject: Breakfast. I would love to participate here and help with the expansion of this project in any way that is needed. I have checked the to-do- list and I see there is work to be done and many more things to add. I currently live in the DC area and would love to be able to contribute about Brunch in DC as well as any other work that is needed to help improve article status. I am really new to Wikipedia, willing to learn, so any advice or recommendations are greatly appreciated.
Thank you Cm8587a for your interest in breakfast. Breakfast is happening here, but you have also wandered into a test space for a new communication system which is not in place elsewhere on Wikipedia. I thought you should be aware.
It would be useful if you contributed to actual Wikipedia articles as part of your time here. If you want to make articles about DC, first start by collecting reliable sources to cite when you add content. All statements on Wikipedia are supposed to be backed by sources, so getting sources is the place to start. Thanks for joining us for breakfast. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry: Thanks so much for helping out here, Bluerasberry. I tried to participate when this was first posted, but at the time I had no Reply button. Ottawahitech (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Rcsprinter123 (note) 23:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Brown Bobby is rated top-importance, but it's just one company's oddly shaped doughnut. Doughnut, on the other hand, is only rated as mid-importance. Does this seem right to you all? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing: I agree and asked the editor who rated it to comment here. Doug Weller talk 20:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing: It appears I was the guilty party who tagged this article as important. As I explained on my talk page this was a mistake. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Ottawahitech (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that Doughnut might be better ranked as high-importance than as mid; "coffee and a doughnut" is a classic commuter breakfast. What do other people think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Since nobody disagreed with me during the last month, I've changed Doughnut to "high" importance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing: I support your reclassification of the doughnut. There are not established guidelines, but doughnuts get a lot of media attention so they seem important on that basis. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Is anyone in this project involved in article assessment?
In light of the discussion thread Article assessment (which I don't know how to link here), I was wondering if anyone is actively assessing articles in this wiki-project? Thanks, Ottawahitech (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Added gallery to project page
Below the members sign up section I posted a gallery of some pictures from Commons. I used the new gallery functions which just became available a few months ago, so the images are packed and I tagged the pictures with country names to emphasize the international nature of this project. I think this gallery is not intrusive in the place where I put it plus I hope that people enjoy it here and become interested in breakfast. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry: I was looking for the gallery but cannot see it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Breakfast/Members - is this the right link? All I see there are images that, I believe,
- User:Northamerica1000 posted last year. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ottawahitech: It is not in this section but below it. There are about ten pictures of breakfasts.
- The link is the main page associated with this talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The last line I see on Wikipedia:WikiProject Breakfast/Members, just before the categories is member #44. I don’t see a gallery? On the plus side my notification lead me directly to your post, YEY! Ottawahitech (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ottawahitech: Here is a screenshot of the entire page! Here you can see the table of contents, the whitespace to the left of the table of contents, and the gallery below the signatures.
- This link expires in about a month. If need be I can upload a permanent picture.
- How are you viewing this page? Is your view really so radically different that so much is excluded? You are doing very strange and personalized things with your settings, right? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC) (Edited by – SJ +)
Vertical whitespace makes it hard to figure out attribution. The "Sj" above this textarea looks to me like it is attached to the text above, requires a doubletake to realize it's my own sig.
The "..." is hard to understand as a navigation element.
The bottom of the textarea quivers for me on MacOS/Chrome: it's not fixed.
The subtext "By clicking "Reply..." is a fine fontsize, but a) doesn't need the extra word 'irrevocably' and b) could be cleaner if aligned with the left edge of the whitespace above it, not the left edge of the [blue] highlighted margin.
I agree with the ... being non-intuitive and have no comment on the rest. I do not have stylistic expectations for usability except that eventually this go through focus group testing before rolling it out. I think the opinions of complete non-Wikipedians should be influential in the final accepted design. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Yellow boxes not floating and this is a problem
The yellow boxes on this page, starting with the one called "About the project", are not floating. This is a problem for my screensize because it means that there is empty space until after the table of contents, at which point the "About the project" section begins.
If these floated then they would automatically resize to match the user's screen. Right now I do not think they look good, but they would like nice if they floated.
- Bluerasberry: You must get a different view than I do. I only see one yellow box on this page and it is called " Project" not "About the project". I also don't see a table of contents. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ottawahitech: Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry: The only place where I see 'File:WikiProject Breakfast banner problem.png is in your reply. On a positive note -- I did get a notification about your reply :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry: It looks like the width of the section headers is the problem, on any screeen < 1200px the 75% width requirement specified in the section header means it wont fit next to the sidebar. I'm not particularly familiar with styling tables, a temporary fix might be to reduce the width 60% or some such. EBernhardson (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- EBernhardson (WMF): Very cool yes that is a reasonable solution. Thanks for suggesting that - I also am not familiar with styling tables but it really is not so hard to make these kinds of changes. Your looking first was an encouragement to me, and yes, what you suggested is best. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I cannot imagine why title headings would not display for you. Obviously they are in the source code for everyone.
- Bluerasberry: I think the answer to both is still "no", but see this screenshot for my current view (the yellow [brown?] box still just says "Project"):
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_talk_-_WikiProject_Breakfast_current_view_%282014-03-31%29.jpg Memetics (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Memetics: I am talking about the main page for the project, not the talk page as is shown in your screenshot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry: Ah; sorry! I was focused on testing the new discussion functionality, so I was looking at the Talk page. Yes: I do see both elements on the main project page. -m Memetics (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Price of breakfast foods going up?
This is for Ottawahitech
I still cannot start a new topic - my + Start a new topic is not clickable.
I would like to post this: Price of breakfast foods going up?
The price of lean pork in the futures market is at record levels and is up 52 percent since the start of the year
Coffee futures have surged 57 percent this year
Just a heads-up that I'm talking over at WT:FOOD about re-writing the articles related to candy. This is resulting in Confectionery getting an accurate scope: bakers' confections (including many breakfast-oriented pastries and baked goods) plus sugar confections (candy/sweets) instead of just the sugar ones.
If you'd like to help with the breakfast aspects of Confectionery, then please feel free to join in. If there's a list of pastries or something, then it would be nice to have that linked.
- WhatamIdoing: I can't find a topic at wt:food called confectionary. Did you mean this? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing: I am not sure if this is what you are looking for, but I found this List of pastries Ottawahitech (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ottawahitech: There also Mekitsa which I found in List of breakfast foods which is not mentioned in List of pastries even though it is described as a pastry.
- History: when the breakfast wikiproject was started we had a category: Breakfast foods, but it was deleted shortly after its creation through the wp:CfD process which I personally believe is a flawed process that damages efforts of editors to organize content... Ottawahitech (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Mekitsa sounds a bit like sopapillas, which also aren't on the list. I wonder if they're considered more "bread" than "pastry"? (I'm not sure what the difference is; fundamentally, all pastries are breads.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing: Tell you the truth I never realized some people refer to pastries as confectionary (which by the way this source confirms. When I googled confectionary I saw the definition runs the full gamut from candies alone to including pastries and some even included ice cream, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ottawahitech: I haven't seen any good sources that claim it's candy alone; confectionery is split into sugar confectionery (candy) and baker's confectionery (pastry and other sweet baked goods). I'm not sure which category ice cream is supposed to be included in, but I've also seen several sources that say it's a confection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I will come up with something. My employer Consumer Reports has had engineers doing a lot of breakfast research for the past few months. Some research is in the food guides and I think in the news now CR is protesting the food coloring in waffle syrup. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sj: See 2nd part of User talk:Ottawahitech#Flow feedback. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I've got a source for eating candy for breakfast... and it says that sugar cereal is candy! The first was something like Sugar Crisp by Quaker Oats, and it was specifically made as candy-coated breakfast cereal puff, as a one-time treat for fairgoers for the 1904 World Fair.[source] The first commercial sugar cereal was put out in 1939, and the only serious difference between this presweetened "cereal" and the World Fair "candy" was the marketing.
No it is not weird and yes share it, that is awesome! Do you have access to deeper sources? How did you get the name Sugar Crisp, when that is not in the original source? The section heading on 285 says, "Candy for Breakfast". I wonder if contemporary marketing really did call it a "candy-coated cereal puff". Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry: There's a 1951 ad for Post's Sugar Crisp reproduced in plate 15, which isn't in the Google Books version. It says that their cereal can be eaten as breakfast, snack, or candy. (All the color plates appear to be "page 183" according to Google.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing: Can you upload a copy of that advertisement? It would make a strong case for using the term "candy". I expect the ad would be in the public domain. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry: You can see the ad here. Here's a similar one. This old TV ad uses the same slogan. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing: Is it your belief that this is not uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? If I uploaded this for you, would you use it? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry: Perhaps I cannot do that. It looks like Saturday Evening Post has its copyright renewed from April 1950 on. The uploader says this is 1950, but someone else says this is from November 1960. Not sure... Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry: My search for "Sugar Crisp" (quoted) at Commons produced zero hits. I'd use it. It should also be placed at Sugar Bear, which is image-free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry: Hmmm - not sure about the Saturday evening post ad, the other ad is from an unnamed publication, but that video seems fair game for Wikimedia Commons. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing: Duke University is managing that Sugar Bear video. I have an email pending to their librarian about copyright. If it is really clear, I should upload it after managing this correspondence. This should not take more than a week. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry: I wanted that TV ad on Archive.org but it seems that it is has the default (complete) copyright on it and will not be free for a long time. Duke Library holds the collection but they are not copyright holders. I suppose all these ads could be cited but unfortunately, this video seems copyrighted, the Saturday Evening Post ad is copyrighted, and the "1951 Post Sugar Crisp Cereal Ad" is from an unspecified magazine so I cannot check the copyright. It seems that I can take no further action to get any of these ads on Commons. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry: It's possible that the ad could be justified as Fair Use (to talk about marketing/the fact that candy wasn't a dirty word back then), but I think we'd want to get other opinions on it.
- I suppose we could figure out how to contact the company to ask them what they copyright status was. In theory, I think that they, rather than the magazine, hold the copyright for the ads (they ran this one in multiple magazines). It depends a little on the advertising contract terms, but the usual thing to do (these days, anyway) is to license your ad to the publication, and hold the copyright yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing: I am not prepared to make a fair use argument, and anyway I try not to put much effort into things that cannot be used in other languages.
- There is no existing infrastructure for making routine requests to external organizations for their content. I am not prepared to ask either Post Foods or any magazine for this content.
- I am not sure of consensus on Commons for old ads. If you or anyone else is serious about pursuing this as an option then I would continue the conversation as we could go forward, but my initial thought is that all easy routes seem closed and that I myself am unwilling to lead an effort to do anything beyond following the easy routes. I think fair use would be the easiest route of remaining options, but I really prefer not to make fair use arguments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry: Now's not the time to make any fair-use claims anyway; it ought to be done within minutes of uploading the image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Update on this: I e-mailed Post about the copyright status on their old advertisements back in July, and despite being (I thought, anyway) pretty clear about my question, I recently received a boilerplate message asking me for things like the name of the publication, the audience, the author, and so forth that I wanted to use the image on.
- I'm trying to figure out whether it's worth replying with "The name of the publication is Wikipedia, and since you've got an internet connection, then YOU are the audience", since they obviously didn't understand what I wrote the first time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- I become less tempted to try this again after having tried this more than a hundred times without success, and without hearing of anyone else having success in these contexts.
- If I were to pursue this, I might consider checking whether they renewed their copyright. See Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Advertisements for a striking assessment which seems to suggest that there is a lot of opportunity to share content in Commons. We probably have a friend in copyright expert Cory Doctorow who has commented on this in the past, and who has supported the active LiveJournal group Vintage Ads. I think it might be more rewarding to write to the Vintage Ads group than to Post. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Notice: Data loss and recovery
Hi all. Investigation is ongoing into a data-loss that was reported yesterday (phab:T95580), which seems to have been caused by a maintenance script updating the database. This affects all topic titles and post contents on this board prior to 11 February 2015. The Operations team is currently assisting with data-recovery from backups. We'll post more information here when we have it. We apologize for not having full information for you right now. Post here if you have any questions; we'll keep this Topic updated when we know more. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: The developers have a plan for recovery. They're going to talk to a few more members of the Operations team, to confirm the exact details, and various options, before proceeding. That is estimated to be Monday at this point, due to various people being away for the weekend. For the current discussions, please continue as normal! I'll update this topic again, when we have more information. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I'm happy to say that all of the data has been restored, so all of the old conversations on this page are back where they belong. We've fixed the problem that allowed the data loss to happen, so it won't happen again. Thanks for your patience, and let me know if you have any questions! DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments requested on how to present health effects of breakfast
Please join conversation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Health_effects_of_eating_breakfast. The special expertise of this project's contributors is requested.
- For those who missed the boat like me, here is the archived version: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_81#Health_effects_of_eating_breakfast. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Hot articles section anyone?
Just wanted to remind the participants here that there is rather an active alerts section over at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Breakfast#Article_Alerts. For those interested in finding out more about Article alerts, please have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Alerts in The Signpost. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me
WikiProject Breakfast Project maintaintance
From about 2013-2015 WikiProject Breakfast was part of an experiment to use discussion software called Flow. Since then that software has been removed from this page. There were still development notes here. I just archived all of those with WP:OneClickArchiver to /Archive 1. I was looking in the archive - the discussions seem to not have gone there. I thought I would make a note here first. Of course I do not want the old discussions lost but I am not sure where they went either. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Blue Rasberry , it looks like the archiving failed and all of the content was lost. I'll restore everything and send Flow-specific sections to /Flow archive.
- Please do not edit this page for the next few minutes. Alsee (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Note that I have restored several sections unrelated to Flow, and I have moved some Flow discussions from Archive 2 to the Flow-related archive. In theory the archive bot should be archiving to Archive 2 now. Someone should investigate why that isn't working. Alsee (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)