Template talk:Veganism and vegetarianism
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Navbox size
[edit]@Throughthemind: @MaynardClark: @BrikDuk: @Odontocetes: @MaynardClark:, @Classicfilms:, @Randy Kryn: @Rasnaboy:, @J Milburn:
I have received an email from a user claiming this template is now too big. On the animal rights template we had a similar issue in the past and solution was to split the template up. Please discuss this. Can this template be split like the other? What are the options here? Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- By split you mean divide the sections into their own clickable section such as the {{Animal rights}} editors have done. That may work here and probably wouldn't lose or confuse too many readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's true that this template is poised to grow much bigger in the future. I think it's wise to organize this in some way or the other, but not sure if splitting would help. Splitting Veganism and vegetarianism will have severe overlaps, much more than between veganism/vegetarianism and animal rights. Maybe as @Randy Kryn: said, organizing it under sections would help for now. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken that's what Psychologist Guy is suggesting, per the Animal rights navbox, not dividing the navbox into two or more navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes sorry, I should have been more clear. I was suggesting to divide the sections within the template like what was done on the animal rights template. I think such a thing is possible but there will need to be a consensus agreement to make it happen. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like it could fit into about six sections with concise titling. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Reorganizing in a manner similar to the Animal rights navbox as Psychologist Guy suggests above. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever works (or can work): It ought to look good and be function. MaynardClark (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is probably worth leaving this discussion open for a few weeks to see if anyone else responds, so far it looks like there is agreement to go ahead with the sections. Thanks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- WoW huge navigation nightmare - should trim and/or split WP:NAVBOX "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." Moxy🍁 09:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- No need to trim or split, that's what the sectioning discussion is about. The navbox doesn't seem a "naviagation nightmare", it is well-sectioned, understandable, and nothing within it confuses readers. As a Wikipedia map to the topic it works well and will be better presented once the sectioning is worked out. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- This size of navbox is the reason why they are not seen in mobile view - link spam at its best. Should make and outline or index page for the 100 subarticles. Moxy🍁 19:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have checked the navbox on my own mobile and partner; there was no issue in viewing it. Veg Historian (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are not seen in mobile view. Moxy🍁 03:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have checked the navbox on my own mobile and partner; there was no issue in viewing it. Veg Historian (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- This size of navbox is the reason why they are not seen in mobile view - link spam at its best. Should make and outline or index page for the 100 subarticles. Moxy🍁 19:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- No need to trim or split, that's what the sectioning discussion is about. The navbox doesn't seem a "naviagation nightmare", it is well-sectioned, understandable, and nothing within it confuses readers. As a Wikipedia map to the topic it works well and will be better presented once the sectioning is worked out. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- WoW huge navigation nightmare - should trim and/or split WP:NAVBOX "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." Moxy🍁 09:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is probably worth leaving this discussion open for a few weeks to see if anyone else responds, so far it looks like there is agreement to go ahead with the sections. Thanks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support: I agree with the idea of splitting it like the Animal rights navbox. We also split the people into contemporary and historical. Throughthemind (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I believe there is a confirmed consensus to split like the animal rights naxbox. The only thing is that an experienced user with some technical skill will have to make the changes. Veg Historian (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Veg Historian That's a valid point. I'm wondering if it makes sense for someone to copy the animal rights navbox template, set up a sandbox, and perhaps we can all work on building it? -Classicfilms (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is quite urgent to fix this issue because I have more people to add to the template. I will try and update the template this week. Veg Historian (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Veg Historian That's a valid point. I'm wondering if it makes sense for someone to copy the animal rights navbox template, set up a sandbox, and perhaps we can all work on building it? -Classicfilms (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I believe there is a confirmed consensus to split like the animal rights naxbox. The only thing is that an experienced user with some technical skill will have to make the changes. Veg Historian (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like it could fit into about six sections with concise titling. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes sorry, I should have been more clear. I was suggesting to divide the sections within the template like what was done on the animal rights template. I think such a thing is possible but there will need to be a consensus agreement to make it happen. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken that's what Psychologist Guy is suggesting, per the Animal rights navbox, not dividing the navbox into two or more navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
New proposal @Throughthemind: @MaynardClark:, @Classicfilms:, @Randy Kryn:
I have just spent 50 minutes trying to update the template but it is far too complicated to make the changes. My new proposal is to create a new template for "People in veganism and vegetarianism". All people should be removed from this template and put on the new one. I think this would solve the issues of the template being too big and it would be simple to create this template. Please let me know if you support this proposal. Veg Historian (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please see my sandbox to what the new template looks like (now completed) Veg Historian (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is an interesting option - I'm open to it, but I'd like to make one additional suggestion. List of vegan and plant-based media covers three parts of the template: Films, Magazines, Books etc. What if we remove those three sections from the template, integrate anything that is missing from the List of vegan and plant-based media page into it, and just add this list? That would also solve the problem I think.-Classicfilms (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Additional comment: I think the biggest difference between what is on the template and what is on the list of List of vegan and plant-based media lies in the BOOKs section. Frankly I feel the books section on the template is more encyclopedic. I would be willing to update the List of vegan and plant-based media BOOKS section, swapping out what is there with what is on the template (unless there are books that appear on the List of vegan and plant-based media that other editors feel should stay). Otherwise, for some time I've felt that there is an overlap between this article and sections of the template. Again in saying this, I'm not necessarily opposed to a template just for PEOPLE - I wanted to raise the media sections as part of this discussion.-Classicfilms (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Classicfilms, unfortunately I didn't understand your proposal. I have created the template [1]. It was crucial to make some progress on this and solve the over-populated template. I believe the issue is now solved. Veg Historian (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ok. The question now is - what is the tag for the new template, so that it can be added to the bio pages (replacing the current template)?-Classicfilms (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Never mind, I see it. I'll work on the replacements.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ok. The question now is - what is the tag for the new template, so that it can be added to the bio pages (replacing the current template)?-Classicfilms (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Classicfilms, unfortunately I didn't understand your proposal. I have created the template [1]. It was crucial to make some progress on this and solve the over-populated template. I believe the issue is now solved. Veg Historian (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Additional comment: I think the biggest difference between what is on the template and what is on the list of List of vegan and plant-based media lies in the BOOKs section. Frankly I feel the books section on the template is more encyclopedic. I would be willing to update the List of vegan and plant-based media BOOKS section, swapping out what is there with what is on the template (unless there are books that appear on the List of vegan and plant-based media that other editors feel should stay). Otherwise, for some time I've felt that there is an overlap between this article and sections of the template. Again in saying this, I'm not necessarily opposed to a template just for PEOPLE - I wanted to raise the media sections as part of this discussion.-Classicfilms (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is an interesting option - I'm open to it, but I'd like to make one additional suggestion. List of vegan and plant-based media covers three parts of the template: Films, Magazines, Books etc. What if we remove those three sections from the template, integrate anything that is missing from the List of vegan and plant-based media page into it, and just add this list? That would also solve the problem I think.-Classicfilms (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Seems the consensus is to keep the topics to one navbox. The good faith split of 'people' into a stand-alone navbox has a major fault: the full range of navbox topics are lost to readers on the individual pages. This removes the map to Wikipedia's vegan/vegetarian collection from the pages of topic notables, an area where they have been widely available, thus not improving or maintaining Wikipedia. The 'people' section of the full navbox can be presented as a clickable collapsed option, as this overall discussion details above. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I am finding myself flipping between the two templates. Suggestion if no one objects - I will create a link in each template to the other one (ie a link in the people template to the general one, and a link in the general one to people).-Classicfilms (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- The reason I created the second template is because it has been over a month and nobody had made the technical edits. It was a desperate situation because I have created 100s of articles for people in veganism and vegetarianism and the template was far too big. Having looked myself at the original proposal to split this template up it is too complex and that is obviously why nobody volunteered to do it. As stated I have spent hours looking at this (I even ported it to my sandbox but kept getting errors on the template in preview). It just wasn't working. Several users have emailed me but nobody stepped in to make the edits. Firstly, an experienced user with serious technical skill would have to make the edits, secondly it would take a long time, hours even. That is why nobody made the edits. We have a second template now for people. I do not think there is anything else that can be done here. If they can be linked go for it. Veg Historian (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Randy Kryn, if you know of any users with serious technical skill that could make the original changes to this template I would still support that. I personally think it will take hours of work. Of course this would mean deleting this template. However, the template I created is serving a good function right now. If any mass changes are going to be made to this template I do not see it happening any time soon, that is why I stepped in. Veg Historian (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Veg Historian and Randy Kryn - You both make excellent points that I agree with. A suggestion - While we all agree that the more complex template is ideal, I do also agree that it is a time consuming project that requires a certain level of expertise. So Plan A would be to see if there is an editor out there who has this skillset. If after a set period of time (that we all agree to) it becomes clear that there isn't an editor who can make these changes, then we can go to plan B: create a link for PEOPLE in the general template and a link to the GENERAL template in the people template. While Plan B is not ideal, it would at least link the two templates together. That being said, I'd also veer towards Plan A if an editor can be found. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- It can't be that hard, see the coding for {{Martin Luther King Jr.}}. But in the past I've tried to create something similar and couldn't get the recipe, ah, coding, right. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Another option, draft the template in a joint sandbox. We used to have a joint sandbox at WP:VAV. I can re-create it. I will not be able to do it this week but I will take a look next week and try and sort this out. For now the other template will do. Veg Historian (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- It can't be that hard, see the coding for {{Martin Luther King Jr.}}. But in the past I've tried to create something similar and couldn't get the recipe, ah, coding, right. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Veg Historian and Randy Kryn - You both make excellent points that I agree with. A suggestion - While we all agree that the more complex template is ideal, I do also agree that it is a time consuming project that requires a certain level of expertise. So Plan A would be to see if there is an editor out there who has this skillset. If after a set period of time (that we all agree to) it becomes clear that there isn't an editor who can make these changes, then we can go to plan B: create a link for PEOPLE in the general template and a link to the GENERAL template in the people template. While Plan B is not ideal, it would at least link the two templates together. That being said, I'd also veer towards Plan A if an editor can be found. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Randy Kryn, if you know of any users with serious technical skill that could make the original changes to this template I would still support that. I personally think it will take hours of work. Of course this would mean deleting this template. However, the template I created is serving a good function right now. If any mass changes are going to be made to this template I do not see it happening any time soon, that is why I stepped in. Veg Historian (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- The reason I created the second template is because it has been over a month and nobody had made the technical edits. It was a desperate situation because I have created 100s of articles for people in veganism and vegetarianism and the template was far too big. Having looked myself at the original proposal to split this template up it is too complex and that is obviously why nobody volunteered to do it. As stated I have spent hours looking at this (I even ported it to my sandbox but kept getting errors on the template in preview). It just wasn't working. Several users have emailed me but nobody stepped in to make the edits. Firstly, an experienced user with serious technical skill would have to make the edits, secondly it would take a long time, hours even. That is why nobody made the edits. We have a second template now for people. I do not think there is anything else that can be done here. If they can be linked go for it. Veg Historian (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I am finding myself flipping between the two templates. Suggestion if no one objects - I will create a link in each template to the other one (ie a link in the people template to the general one, and a link in the general one to people).-Classicfilms (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)