Talk:List of vegans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Medical doctors

I have added a new section called "Medical doctors". Various doctors have completed studies showing that a lifestyle change incorporating a low fat vegetarian or vegan diet could not only prevent various degenerative diseases, but reverse them. They are worthy of their own section. These doctors include Dean Ornish, T. Colin Campbell, John A. McDougall and Caldwell Esselstyn, but some of these appear to be vegetarian rather than vegan. Only list vegans on this article. nirvana2013 (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Adam Fisher

Adam Fisher has been repeatedly added back to the list [1] using references that do not meet the criteria for reliable sources WP:RS.

• http://soundcloud.com/altpress-1/ap-podcast-27-fear-before fails to meet the criteria by virtue of being a self-published source. Anyone can set up a blog or personal website and for that reason they are not acceptable WP:SPS. Soundcloud.com comes under this category because while the audio or video material may well be legitimate, it can be posted by anyone. Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources? states YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. Soundcloud.com fails on the same grounds as Youtube.

• http://sparkoflife.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/a-brief-moment-with-fear-before-the-march-of-flames/ also fails on the grounds of being a WP:SPS. Blogs are not classed as reliable sources. Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published sources (online and paper) clearly states Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable.

• http://www.peta2.com/outthere/o-fbtmof.asp is also not appropriate here since it does not back up the claim that he is vegan. While peta2.com is a reliable source at no point in the reference given does it state that Fisher is vegan. It states that he is vegetarian, but that is not the same thing.

Names must be accompanied by a reliable secondary source, such as newspaper or magazine articles. In the absence of a secondary source a primary source such as an official website would suffice. Until a reliable source is found to back up the claim Fisher is vegan he must remain off the list. If you disagree with my interpretation of what constitutes a reliable source then you are advised to enquire about your sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. An alternative course of action would be to add him to List of vegetarians with the peta2.com reference. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Reconciling with the list of vegetarians.

I think everyone on this list should also be added to the list of vegetarians with an asterisk (or some other identifier). This would match the format of similar de facto overlapping lists. For example, a list of entertainers from Michigan (let's say) would include people that would also be on a list for the U.S. Is anyone opposed to this? --Jleon (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is addressed above in Talk:List_of_vegans#List_of_vegetarians. You're welcome to reopen the debate of course. Betty Logan (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Clinton diet

Someone added this today:

• Bill Clinton

"Clinton's weight loss secret: Plants". CNN. Turner Broadcasting System. September 22, 2010. Retrieved 2010-09-22.

I susbequently removed it because even though his "plant based" diet excludes "all" meat and dairy he confesses to occasionally eating fish. Since this technically breaches the definition of veganism I have temporarily removed it. I suppose officially it is pescetarian, but it's much more specific than that and the diet strives to exclude fish content, so doesn't really seem to fit in there. The diet is closer to veganism than anything, and is vegan based, so I'm not sure whether we should permit a 'nearly' vegan or whether that would be seen as compromising the list. Personally I'm borderline on this so would like a second opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote against keeping it. The only borderline ingredient I think is acceptable in the context of veganism is honey - using any other non-vegan ingredients at all, ever, simply makes it not vegan. If dairy is occasionally used, it's vegetarianism; if fish is occasionally used, it's pescetarianism. There is probably room for Clinton's diet in the context of this article, just not in the master list. (And good for him for taking such a diet up, by the way.) That's my vote, at least. Best, Colinclarksmith (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I originally moved it to the "pescetarian" list but then removed it, although it is technically pescetarian it really isn't in the spirit of one, since pescetarian diets embrace fish as a component of the diet, and accept dairy. The diet Clinton has adopted sounds most likely vegan but from the sounds of things he occasionally breaks the rules and indulges in fish. My thinking on this is to add him back to the pescetarian list but add a note to his name to clarify that it isn't a conventional pescetarian diet. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I like your idea of adding him to the pescetarian list with a caveat. That would be the best way to describe that diet, although it is an unconventional take on that diet. Anyway, I don't mean to penalize someone for "cheating" on veganism every once in a while - I'm sure plenty of people on the list do that from time to time, although probably not with fish. I think that ultimately these diets are self-defined identities. But to the extent that we can assess these things objectively (which of course isn't in an ultimate sense, just a functional sense), I myself assess Clinton as a pescetarian. Best, Colinclarksmith (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to the pescetarians with a note. I think it's the best solution provided the pescetarian editors accept it. We can only ever source claims anyway, but the claim should be entirely consistent with the accepted definition. The press of course are writing it up that he's gone vegan so I guess we'll be removing him a few times. Betty Logan (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Well, thanks for your diligence with those sorts of things! Best, Colinclarksmith (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Change of formatting to match List of vegetarians

I created a temp page to do some formatting work on the list of vegans so that it matches the list of vegetarians. Talk:List_of_vegans/Temp At the moment all I've done is added the colour key and colour coded the first group (entertainers). Obviously the rest would have to be colour coded and then sorted by country. Before I go any further though I just want to check if this is actually wanted? Muleattack (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think it would be a good idea for them to have a common structure. Betty Logan (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh good, I thought I got the impression that it was wanted, just wasn't sure if I'd misread it. I've done some more work on it, feel free to jump in. Muleattack (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll drop a note for some of the regular editors. If it's going to undergo a major format change it's best to see if anyone objects first. If we do it, it might by a good time to give the disputed/former vegans their own section at the bottom of the article as discussed above. Some editors feel that just putting (former/disputed) after the name isn't a clear enough distinction. Betty Logan (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they should have the same structure. --N-k (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong agree - I think the list of vegetarians looks great and would love to see the vegans article get the same TLC. As for the former/disputed section, no opinion. Colinclarksmith (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we do something with this as all the time we wait updates are happening that will need to be applied to the new version. Muleattack (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've transferred the color coded list to the main article. I've added the new names which you didn't have on your list so it's bang up to date. It can be divided into countries on the actual article itself. That's a great job you've done. Betty Logan (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Zooey Deschanel Is No Longer a Vegan

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Zooey-Deschanel-Is-No-Longer-a-Vegan-147185.shtml

im removing her — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultan42 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ex-vegans aren't removed from the list; if they're no longer a vegan it is noted next to their entry with a reference. Betty Logan (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Donald watson.jpg

Resolved

The image File:Donald watson.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we make this sortable?

Could we code this so that the list is sortable using tables? If the category (sports, film etc.) was one column and the rest of the information was in a second surely it would be possible to sort the people by category which I'm sure would be very useful.Muleattack (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if country wasn't a heading for several sections but a heading for a single column it would be sortable by country and category. Might make it easier. Muleattack (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better. Personally I would order the whole thing alphabetically by name, and have columns for name, nationality, occupation, strictness i.e active/disputed/former, and a references column. That way readers would be able to exercise a lot more control over how they would like to view the information. However, it would be a very time consuming task. Betty Logan (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I made an example table on a test page, two flaws I found, one is that the table won't sort by the coloured squares, the other is that a sortable table seems to have a compulsory border so it doesn't look as good as it could. Anyway, if anyone wants to see what they think you can find it here - Talk:List_of_vegans/Temp#Table_example Muleattack (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made the first column sortable now Muleattack (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A couple of observations: I think we can lose the column of squares if we have a sortable table. I think we should limit occupations to basic groups so they will divide into clear disciplines when sorted i.e. Performing arts (Actor, Comedian etc)/Presenter/Music/Politics/Business/Activism/Sport/Writing/Art/Science/Engineering/Healthcare/Fashion/Spiritualism—these are just rough guides, but you can imagine how such terms would divide up a table. Something like "Ecofeminist theorist" won't sort into any group. In regards to "vegan status", I don't think we need vegan in every single sell because it's kind of obvious. I would just use the terms we have now: Active/Former/Disputed. I will adjust the example table to show you what I mean (feel free to revert/adjust anything you disagree with though). Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I've turned "Actress" into Actor so they group togther. I'm also have second thoughts about the "Status" column. Perhaps it would be best to have three tables, one for active vegans, one for disputed vegans and another for former vegans. It might be better to keep the three groups distinct. I also think it's better to use countries than nationalities so I've adjusted that to. Anyway, let me know what you think. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Like it, I do like the squares simply because they add a bit more colour but they're not really necessary. Good to see you solved the problem of name sorting, I couldn't think how to do that without listing names Surname first. I do think dropping the status column is a good idea and having separate tables for disputed/former. With the occupation column, I think it could have a few set options like actor, musician, politician, other etc. and a second un-sortable column that is more specific about their activities. So Chelsea Clinton for example would be listed as 'other' then in the second column it would more specifically state 'daughter of Bill Clinton'. Muleattack (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fussed about the color codes really; if you'd like to keep them I'm ok with that. In regards to occupation, I have an idea of how to handle that. We could keep the specific occupations, but have a hiden sortkey that places something like rapper with musicians. That way we can keep the specifc info, but get the grouping. Same with actor/actress too. I'll have a look at it later. Betty Logan (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added in the hidden sort key. If you sort by occupation, Common and C-dric are grouped together as musicians. If you want to add the color templates back in feel free to do that. Betty Logan (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it, I think the coloured blocks do work well, not just for colour but they allow you to quickly see groups of people with similar occupations. Without them you'd have to check each occupation to see if they're similar.Muleattack (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ugh... I tried making a version of your latest list with the squares added back in but I'm getting an excess line break beneath each square and can't figure out why. I'm sure it will work though since the first table looks fine.Muleattack (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Betty Logan (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks sorted. The legend width was forcing a second line so I set a column width for it to keep it on the first line. I centered the legends too. I also extended the country width slightly, since it wasn't wide enough in Internet Explorer to keep it on the same line. I've add back sorting ability to the occupation so that we can have inter-group refining i.e. you may want to group actors within the pink group; For example, I've done this by making the sort code for an actor and actress as "pinkactor"; the sort code for Andrews Gunsberg on the otherhand is just "pink". It gives readers an extra level of sorting ability. If you sort on occupation, you will see they split into their color groups and then they split into their division wihtin the group. Betty Logan (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks okay but it does look neater in the 'example table', I can't see why the legend would cause a line break in the 'active 2' table but not in the 'example table'. The 'pinkactor' etc. sort code would be good but my concern is it would make the article complicated for editors who would have to learn the system. Gonna play with it some more tomorrow. Good job with the work you put in to it, hopefully some others will add some input. Muleattack (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can just remove the sort code for that column but leave it sortable; I mean, if you sort on that column you don't really need it breaking down into the colors, but you still might want to group the actors which a normal alphabetic sort would do? I'll have another look at the legends, there may be a way to tighten it up. Betty Logan (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, can I ask what browser you are using? In Firefox and Internet Explorer I also get a line break below the legends in the top example, whereas in Opera I don't. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I was using Firefox (6.0.2) but just tried in I.E. (9.0.2) and got the same result. I've had a bit more of a play with 'Example table' and am happy with it's design now. There's a couple of cosmetic changes that could be made to it such as setting column widths and centreing references but I think it would be best to do it without those touches initially. The column widths because once all the data is in the table it will be easier to see how best to set them and the centred references to keep the work load down as this can easily be sorted afterwards. Also, I've left the occupation column unsortable for now but am not at all opposed to it being sortable. So that's my final proposal I think. If you want to have a different design we can see which people prefer (or if they dislike the idea all together!Muleattack (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with the design; column widths/making columns sortable can be addressed at a later point, since it only means adding a bit of code to the table headers. The main thing is the structure/content, which we agree on. Since it's a major alteration I suggest leaving it for a week to give other editors a chance to say whether they want the table format or the list format. I actually think there are compelling policy reasons for changing to the table i.e. splitting the list by nationality puts too much emphasis on a person's nationality. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new format - Opinions needed

Please see the proposed format here

The proposed new format would consolidate all the current separate lists by country in to one table arranged alphabetically by name. The user can then choose to sort the table as they wish to best suit their needs, by occupation, country etc. There would still be separate tables for disputed/ex vegans.

Input would be appreciated, there's more info in the discussion above if needed. Muleattack (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but I quite like the separate country listings; without that, it's just a mass of names. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just bumping this so it doesn't get archived, could still use some input on it. Muleattack (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ozzy Osbourne

I think Ozzy might be vegan now, check the news. Sorry, bit short on time myself right now so can't do it myself. Muleattack (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

here are some sources. http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/ozzy-osbourne-embraces-vegan-diet.html and http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/blogs/ozzy-osbourne-is-now-vegan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millertime246 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Jorge Garcia (Hurley from Lost)

He's apparently gone vegan but I don't have a good ref for it. Muleattack (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sara Gilbert

According to her wiki page she is vegan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Gilbert Muleattack (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't sourced, but if she is involved in PETA it shouldn't be too hard to find one, possibly from the PETA site. Betty Logan (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Petra Nemcova Image

The Petra Nemcova image was removed¹ by mistake. I would never intentionally remove an image without a very good reason, and if I had such a reason I would clearly state it.
I was in the process of restoring the image when user Betty Logan restored it. --Andomedium (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough; sometimes people try to install "pet" images on the article, but we should try to make them representative i.e. men/women/occupational background etc . However, when you removed the image from List of vegetarians it ideally needed replacing since all the others moved up a slot on the article. If you pull an image because the person is no longer on the article then feel free to replace it with someone from the same country. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing names

I've started a section at the top of the talk page for any names removed, or names of people we know are vegans but are missing from the list. See Talk:List_of_vegans#Names_needing_sources. If a name is added without an RS, perhaps editors could add the name to the list, so that others can track down a source. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. You, my friend, are a Wikipedia superhero. --Andomedium (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of dead link templates

Howdy all. All of the links marked as dead, except one, have been fixed. Unfortunately, the last link marked as dead appears to go to a pdf, and I'm not aware of any kind of archive web site for pdfs.--Rockfang (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

{{wayback}} archives pdfs. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine might archive some pdfs, but I don't think it is a lot. I've been using the Wayback Machine for awhile now, and I don't think I've ever come across a pdf archived on there.--Rockfang (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Jamie Kilstein

Howdy all. I've removed Jamie Kilstein from the list. He only had one source listed. It was a dead link, but an archived version of the source didn't actually say he is/was a vegan. All it says is that his girlfriend got him a vegan cake. I suggest a better source be found if he is added back to the list.--Rockfang (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He's back on the list with new refs. --Andomedium (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Good references.--Rockfang (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced entries removed

Carly Rae Jepsen, Zooey Deschanel, and Scarlett Johansson removed as unsourced - please include reliable sources if re-adding. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverting

Sources

Betty, I was wondering, per this revert, why someone's website would not be a reliable source for whether that person was a vegan. So long as the person is notable enough to have a WP article, their own website discussing their veganism would surely be the most reliable source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources are never acceptable unless we can corroborate their authorship. Take Twitter for example, only verified accounts are permitted as self-published sources on Wikipedia since actions are taken to ascertain the identity of the account holder. Similarly, if there was a published article or a work profile that identified this site as belonging to the person in question then that would probably be ok. That said, if he is publicly vegan there is probably a secondary source out there that we can use instead. Betty Logan (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources may be used to discuss themselves, so long as there is no reason to doubt who the author is. The policy is at WP:SELFPUB. For a list like this, a self-published (or primary) source is the best kind, because only the subject can know whether she's a vegan. So long as the source isn't being used to establish notability (i.e. so long as the subject has a WP article based on other sources), then there is no problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point; there are plenty of self-published sources used to cite the claims on this list, that is not the problem. The point is about substantiating that the site belongs to the person in question. For a verified Twitter account steps have been taken to verify the identity of the account holder; for an official band website the site can usually be proven to represent the band members. In this case there is no evidence that the website belongs to the person in question—for all we know the editor who added the person could have set it up. Anyone can set up a website and pretend to be someone else, or indeed be confused with someone else. If it can be proven the website belongs to the person then it is a credible SPS source, if not then it isn't. Betty Logan (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The policy (WP:SELFPUB) doesn't say that a self-published source has to be authenticated. It says: "[so long as] there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." In the case of the website in question, there's nothing to suggest that it's not his; it's referred to as his on other websites; and he mentions on several pages that he's vegan, or lists vegan restaurants, refers to vegan food, etc. So it seems a reliable-enough source for this point, under the policy. If it were a contentious issue, I'd agree with you, but for something like this it seems good enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason the guideline doesn't say that is because it is blindlingly obvious we must be able authenticate that a self-published source is by the subject. The list has a pretty decent standard of sourcing, in that all the sources are either secondary sources or self-published sources which we can authenticate are published by the subject and I see no compelling reason to compromise that. All I can suggest is that you take it up at WP:RSN and get them to ok it as a reliable source if you honestly think it is acceptable. Betty Logan (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Betty, it's not a guideline, it's part of the sourcing policy, WP:V. I actually wrote that part of the policy, and the reason it doesn't require authentication is that active authentication would be an unreasonable burden. I agree with you that, for anything contentious, or where there is reasonable doubt about authenticity, we should avoid self-published sources, but for material that's consistent with SELFPUB, they are fine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

William John Sullivan

On his website, William John Sullivan states that he is vegan.^{S1 A1}.
Whether or not wjsullivan.net is actually his website is being questioned by the Wikipedia user Betty Logan who removed Sullivan from the list of vegans, so I will provide two ways that this user might be able to set their mind at ease.
Way 1:
Sullivan's apparent website is wjsullivan.net and his apparent preferred online name is johnsu01 ^{S2 A2 S3 A3 S4 A4}
We know that Sullivan is the Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation and that this foundation's website is fsf.org ^{S5 A5}.
So, now what we need is a connection from Sullivan's confirmed work website (fsf.org) to his apparent personal website (wjsullivan.net) or to his apparent preferred online name (johnsu01).
There are two archived documents at fsf.org that provide a decent connection to both.^{S6 A6 S7 A7}
Way 2:
Contact Sullivan using the information on the fsf.org contact page and ask him if wjsullivan.net is his website. --Andomedium (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thankyou for going to the effort to establish the authorship of the site. It's a pretty ropey looking site for a computer programmer, but the main thing is that we can now explicitly link it to him. Betty Logan (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerns

Betty, you're reverting well-known vegans, the latest Heather Nicholson. Can I ask that you raise concerns on talk rather than reverting so much?

Also, could we rethink the different colours? The templates are making the page slow to load (it took several minutes to load for me at one point today), and section editing is difficult because people have to constantly check at the top to see which colour they're supposed to use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If she's that well known you should be able to come up with a better source than the one you did come up with, because we both know what the outcome on that one will be if I'm forced to take it over to the RS noticeboard. As for the legends, another editor and I proposed dropping them and converting to a table but we were shot down. If you want to resurrect the discussion on that be my guest, I will support a sensible solution. Betty Logan (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said on the RSN, I respect what you're trying to do here in keeping the list in order, so I have no problem with a little OWNership if the result is a better quality page. But I think you're taking it too far when you're removing one of the UK's best-known animal liberationists. I added a source from a vegan catering group to remind people to send her birthday wishes. They wouldn't do that if she were a meat-and-two-veg person, so with this kind of individual it boils down to common sense. I don't know whether she has ever said anywhere "I am a vegan," because with someone in her position it's like stating 2+2=4. So the vegan catering source should be enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Legends/templates

I've looked through the archives, and can't see you suggesting that we remove the templates; in fact it looks as though it was you who added them. I think we do need to rethink them, because they are making editing difficult, and as the list gets longer the load time will get worse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The color coding existed on the List of vegetarians first (not initiated by me). It was suggested at Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Change_of_formatting_to_match_List_of_vegetarians the vegan list should follow the vegetarian list, and pretty much had universal consensus. The list was constructed at Talk:List_of_vegans/Temp, and as you can see I helped out but was not the primary editor (not that it would matter if I was because the formatting had a clear consensus at the time). Muleattack started a fresh discussion about converting to a table format at Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Can_we_make_this_sortable.3F, which I agreed to. You can see a n example of his table at Talk:List_of_vegans/Temp#Table_example. The reason that stalled was because you shot it down: Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Proposal_for_new_format_-_Opinions_needed. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I "shot it down"? I posted once about it, and said: "It's not a big deal, but I quite like the separate country listings; without that, it's just a mass of names."

I don't mind what format it's in, so long as it doesn't involve large numbers of templates, which make the page slow to load for readers and editors. So if no one minds, I would like to start removing them at some point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well look, they are in there because there was a consensus for them, so I suppose there really needs to be a consensus to remove them. I would support their removal within the context of a sensible approach to improve the overall organizational structure of the list; for instance, the current ordering of the list is pointless if you don't know what country someone comes from, you basically have to wordsearch, so the list would be much better ordered alphabetically. I also suspect the page loads slowly because of the images rather than the templates (when you consider how much data is being transferred the templates are equivalent to a couple of images), so if loading times are an issue for you then it would be better to remove all the images. But rather than ripping something out to achieve an objective that it might not achieve, I would rather have a broader discussion about the direction of the list. Betty Logan (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the page loads slowly because of the templates; this is a well-known phenomenon on WP. Here is one of many discussions about it over the years. In addition, requiring people to find out which colour to add for which profession makes the page awkward to edit, especially for new editors. So whatever format is chosen, the templates do need to go, because the more we add (as the list grows), the slower the load time. The table suggestion you made in the archives also involved keeping the templates, and so would not have helped. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed them for now to see whether it makes much difference to the speed and ease of editing. If not, we can always revert. The speed problem stems from the colour templates, and also from the citation templates, particularly as lots of the names have multiple unnecessary citation templates after them. The speed issue has something to do with the page being reloaded in its entirety every time a template has to be retrieved.

The second issue with the colours is that it makes editing harder because we have to keep looking to see which colour to use, and this is a bar to editing for new editors. So whatever we end up choosing for the format, ideally it would be something user-friendly that doesn't cause speed issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about load times, it seems to load instantly for me, but I'm leaning towards losing the coloured squares for the reasons suggested. The table suggestion only included the coloured squares because I thought they helped make the page more user friendly, Betty Logan did actually suggest that they were removed.

Just removing the squares doesn't appeal to me though, for the same reason that you opposed the table suggestion. Without any organisation except name and country, it's just a mass of names. Muleattack (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The squares are templates, that's the problem, and templates slow the page down significantly. It can now be edited more easily (though the citation templates still slow it down). Also, for new editors the colour coding was creating an extra bar to editing, and this is the kind of page that attracts new editors because it should be easy to add a name.

Perhaps we could organize a table that preserves the country names, but doesn't involve templates? Alternatively, we could use the list format, but list them per profession, rather than country, then beside each name have a little clickable country flag. The coloured squares aren't clickable, so they don't actually tell you what their profession is anyway. The flags would prettify the list and would be informative. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has told you that just removing the color codes doesn't appeal, so why are you persisting in going against the consensus? You do understand the concept don't you? Betty Logan (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

He wrote: "I'm leaning towards losing the coloured squares for the reasons suggested." You also suggested removing them, as did I. So now they are removed and the page is easier to edit. We can therefore discuss what, if anything, to put in their place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we both indicated we were open to the option, just as we were last year before you keboshed it. We both indicated we are not happy with the sole removal of these color codes, so the correct way forward is to leave the article as it was and discuss the options that are available to us. Other editors were also involved in the decision to ahve the color codes, so they should have a chance to have their say too. You are an admin, you should be conducting yourself better because you know full well pushing through your edits in this manner is not in keeping with consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I was a fan of the color-coding system and think that the article was more useful and looked better with them. I use a horrifically slow PC and didn't experience any problems with the loading the page as it previously was. That said, I am open to other possible ways of expressing the information that the color-coding system expressed; but if the choice is between the previous system of denoting the individual's occupation or no system at all, I will choose the former in a moment. CCS81 (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I was getting really slow load times when trying to view differences between revisions. That problem appears to be gone now.

Example of previous slow loading

Example of current faster loading

--Andomedium (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You can see the difference with these links:

Loading with colour coding

Loading without colour coding

The first takes around 20 seconds to load for me (and a few times today took over a minute). The second loads immediately. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Both are now taking a long time to load. Same with the two that I posted above.

Looks like it might just be that the revision comparison for the most recent edit on the History page always loads fast and the revision comparisons for all other edits load slow. --Andomedium (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If we can ever face going through the list and removing all the extraneous refs (i.e. having one good ref per entry, or multiple refs but without templates), that will speed it up further. Every time we add squiggles -- {{ -- to a page, that signifies a template, and each one puts an extra load on the servers. When a page has hundreds of references that use templates and is likely to keep growing, it becomes a real problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been adding multiple refs per entry to help ensure that the entry will remain on the list in the event that a valid ref is deleted by another user who deems it unsatisfactory or no longer valid. The more refs that I add, the better the chances are of the entry remaining on the list.

I'll be sure to no longer use templates when adding refs unless I have to for some reason.

I'm currently focusing one getting removed names back on the list and adding a few new names as I go but, after that, I'll write a program to convert all of the template refs to non-template refs. --Andomedium (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you do, that will be going to dispute resolution too. Citation templates make it easier for editors to add sources, and as such the style guidelines do not discourage their use as per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_templates_and_tools. However, the guidelines state article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see a load time difference, yes. I would still vote for finding a system for expressing the information expressed by the previous system, but I'm merely casting a vote, rather than offering to get engaged deeply. Cheers, CCS81 (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Andomedium, that would be great if you could create that script. It would mean we'd speed up load time, and would have a uniform way of writing the references. At the moment, people are using a mix of manual and different templates, which produce different styles.

As for the formatting, following on from Muleattack's suggestion for a table, I've created one at User:SlimVirgin/tables with flags, which prettifies it a little. If people don't like flags, we could try to create the colour-coding without the templates, if there's a way to do it. But any kind of colour-coding is awkward for new editors, because they have to keep checking to see which legend they ought to use, so I'm thinking it's best avoided.

I agree we should try to add some of the names back that have been removed. (Even Maneka Gandhi was removed.) Perhaps in future if a name is not well-sourced, editors could look for a source before removing it, or if they don't have time add it to the talk page so others can look for one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. --Andomedium (talk) 04:06, 30 April 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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^C 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information... Some readers of Wikipedia 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^talk 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 ^(talk) 02:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia: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>[http://caroljadams.com "Carol J. Adams"], caroljadams.com, accessed 2 September 2011.

*Hutchinson, Jane and Field, Melissa. [http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21753239-5006011,00.html "Cooking with the stars"], ''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 ^(talk) 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

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

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 16:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Just seen the most recent version of the article. It's far too big, and you didn't have consensus to make the change. The pictures are too much and make the article difficult to read. Muleattack (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, that if sorting by name is the only option and it's still divided in to countries then it's pretty pointless being in a sortable table, the whole idea of that suggestion was so that you could find a name without knowing the country. Who wants to look at a list of names in reverse alphabetical order by surname? Muleattack (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Changing name of article

I reckon "list of vegans" is not a suitable for this article, as it does not (nor should) list all living vegans, but only the famous or relevant to the animal rights movement ones. Therefore, I believe a better title would be "List of famous vegans" or something along these lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luizedu (talk • contribs) 19:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Harley Johnstone

AKA durianrider - elite Australian cyclist and runner - one of the most popular vegan activists of the moment - runs the worlds most popular raw foods website and an extremely popular youtube channels (by far the most popular raw foods youtube channel) and has been featured TV and often is in print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.177.99 (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• Uri Geller

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

Discuss.

As of 6 July 2011, Tom Lenk was not vegan. Source can be found here. --Andomedium (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As of 8 March 2011, Uri Geller was not vegan. Source can be found here. --Andomedium (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Russell Simmons is now on the list. --Andomedium (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ted Danson

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

Ted Danson is now vegan. Source can be found here --Andomedium (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Filling the table with images

Will someone please explain why the table was filled with images when far from a consensus being formed to add them, two editors spoke AGAINST this course of action. The recent RFC only established the consensus to remove the legends, and nothing else.

Both myself and User:Muleattack voiced our objections to the inclusion of images in the table, so I would like to know why these changes were initiated regardless? A further objection by Muleattack was also completely ignored too, which isn't correct Wikipedia etiquette.

I have reverted the table to its pre-image format, since this went far beyond what the original RfC had established. I have initiated an RFC to get some independent input, so I hope all editors respect the process and stand by the outcome. Betty Logan (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin responded to Muleattack's initial comment regarding the images.

I watched for several days to see if Muleattack would continue that discussion with SlimVirgin but he never did.

The next comment I saw from Muleattack was further down the page, about six days later.

I responded to that comment and checked that section every day for quite a while, waiting for Muleattack to continue the discussion, but he did not.

In fact, Muleattack disappeared for 25 days and returned ten days after the new table format had been created and put in place.

That's when he posted this.

By that time, I had already stopped checking for responses on the talk page and was heavily engrossed in improving and expanding the List of vegans.

I figured that if anyone really needed to talk to me they could just use my talk page.

So, what we actually have is both Betty Logan and Muleattack disappearing in the middle of the discussion about the table images.

The troublemaker (Betty Logan) threw a tantrum and (much to my delight) flew the coop ^{[1][2] [3]} and Muleattack just simply disappeared for 25 days (he wasn't really an active contributor to the lists at that time so it really wasn't surprising).

SlimVirgin and I were the remaining editors and there was certainly consensus amongst us to begin improving and expanding the list with a table format that included image thumbnails.

At present, what we have is Betty Logan returning 67+ days after flying the coop to begin making trouble again (after hundreds of hours have already been put into improving and expanding the lists).

No complaints received from any readers regarding the new format. In fact, as mentioned below, I showed the list to at least eighty different readers beforehand and every single one of them preferred the tables with the thumbnails.

But that's not what matters is it?

What matters is that Betty thinks the list is now "too long" so Betty's going to try to collect votes from a few people who aren't even actively contributing to the lists.

And why is Betty doing this?

Because Betty knows that it is likely that only a few votes are needed to win.

I'm currently the lists' only truly active contributing editor. I'm the only one here who knows all of the details and fully understands the value of the images, and I'm the only one who has surveyed readers to to get their input on the images. I'm currently the only one here who knows well enough to vote in favor of retaining the images.

It's an easy win for troublemaker Betty if things continue on the current course.

(Sorry, I didn't mean to type quite so much. If you have any questions, please ask.) --Andomedium (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't accuse other editors of being trouble makers because they disagree with you. I haven't posted because I've felt pushed out of this article and that my considerations were ignored. I actually stopped editing wikipedia entirely because of the way this article was changed with total contempt for my and Betty Logans opinions. Muleattack (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Betty Logan is a trouble maker. It's a simple fact. It has nothing to do with disagreement. --Andomedium (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind if I ask if my comment below in defense of retaining the images and country sectioning makes sense? And, if not, could you let me know which part doesn't make sense so that I can clarify? --Andomedium (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment did violate WP:NPA. Given the way that you have steadfastly refused to work with Betty on this article, I would tend to think it speaks to your ability to edit collegially.—Kww(talk) 21:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A troublemaker is a troublemaker. It's not a personal attack; it's a comment regarding Betty's attitude and actions here on Wikipedia. Betty needs to have her admin privileges taken away (if she actually has any). Also, if you think what's taking place here stems from someone's unwillingness to work with Betty, you don't know what actually took place.--Andomedium (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you're here, could you too check my statement below to let me know if there's anything that doesn't really make sense? Thank you. --Andomedium (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what has happened here. A repeat of any such personal attack will result in you being blocked.—Kww(talk) 06:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack Kww, and, having read your communications with Betty Logan, it's clear that you are either not aware of what actually happened or you're simply friends with Betty Logan and are trying to give the impression that Betty Logan was not at fault. --Andomedium (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a friend of Betty Logan's. No idea who she is in real life, and, if you check things out, you will see no common editing history. I simply note that from the time that the disputes on this article began, you've refused to consider her or Muleattack's opinions. Betty reacted poorly to that, wound up alienating a lot of people, and nearly got blocked as a result. That in no way absolves you from blame: it was your original approach that kicked off the problem. I'm glad to see Betty moving through more acceptable approaches to getting this situation resolved. Calling for an RFC is not "making trouble": in her view, you've damaged the article and gone beyond the scope of the earlier RFC. My actual view on article content is that her version was bad, your version is worse, and that there's no particular reason to have an article on this topic at all. What's next: List of ovolactovegetarians? Why do someone's dietary practices warrant mention in an encyclopedia?—Kww(talk) 17:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I considered each opinion that Betty Logan and Muleattack posted.

What kicked things off was Betty Logan's bizarre territorial behavior when it came to editors adding new people to the list. Her behavior was so bizarre that it's actually hard to put into words. One of the best examples is her removal of Kesha from the list simply because the editor failed to add her to the list in alphabetical order. Though not even that really paints a proper picture of how bizarre her behavior was.

That's what kicked things off but it was her following actions that deserve most of your attention if you're trying to piece together what took place. --Andomedium (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't even this article, and my edit summary makes the reason very clear. However, that had nothing to do with any of your edits, so here is a list of your edits that I had to revert if anybody wants to check for impropriety:

1. [2] - Verifiability issue
2. [3] - RS issues.
3. [4] - Source claims subject is vegetarian, yet also states she eats fish.
4. [5] - RS issues.
5. [6] - RS issues
6. [7] - RS issues
7. [8] - RS issues
8. [9] - RS issues
9. [10] - RS issues
10. [11] - RS issues

Why is that Heather Nicholson source even back in this list, after it was categorically ruled not reliable by three editors on the grounds that it was self-published and did not actually back up the claim? Unfortunately, your additions are reverted most of the time because you have no regard for WP:RS, and pretty much uses anything written on the internet as a source. On the odd occasion you used a legitimate source then I didn't revert you. Sadly, your involvement in this article has been detrimental: it has compromised the integrity of the list through the use of unacceptable sources, you have violated policy by removing all the citation templates, and you have ignored consensus which was to not have images in the table. At the moment the RfC looks like it favors removing all the table pictures, and if that is the outcome I will revert the article to its last known configuration without the images and with the citation templates. I will then proceed through the article adding back in any people who were lost in the revert, on the provision that the sources for them conform to RS standard. After I've done that I would like to resume discussion with Muleattack to finalise the nature of the table format we hope to use; you would be welcome to participate in that discussion, but any decisions made and implemented will be a collective one. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't even this article, and my edit summary makes the reason very clear.

It was the List of vegetarians and, yes, your summary makes it clear that you completely removed Kesha from the list simply because the editor failed to add her to the list in alphabetical order. And she remained off the list until I happened to come along months later to add her back.

However, that had nothing to do with any of your edits, so here is a list of your edits that I had to revert if anybody wants to check for impropriety:

I'm wasn't especially concerned about you reverting my edits. I was concerned about the manner of your reverting actions in general and your bizarre territorial behavior.

[1] I didn't add that

[2] The first source is the one that was used to determine his diet. The other sources are only supporting sources that were added primarily to give you something to delete. (I found that if three to five sources were added instead of one, you tended to delete the less reliable sources, leave the most reliable source and allow the person to stay on the list, rather than just deleting everything. Though, in this particular case, you deleted even the most reliable source because you didn't bother to check the "Familiy" section on the page, which is the section that talks about his diet. ...Later on, after there was a discussion with some admins, you became a little less territorial and I was often able to use just 1 or 2 sources without you removing the person from the list).

[3] This was discussed here but I'll talk specifically about the sources: The most recent of those source says that she's a vegetarian. That is the source I was using to add her to the list. The other two sources were supporting sources added primarily to give you something to delete. However, none of those sources were used to determine her diet. When I added her to the list, I knew for certain that she was no longer eating seafood because she said so in television appearances. Unfortunately, I didn't know of any way that I could cite those television appearances so I used the news article source, which is a legitimate source. The removal of Lee Hyori is not one of your actions that caused me to make statements about your being territorial and bizarre (if that's what you're thinking). The removal of Lee Hyori is understandable, though it would have been nice if you had actually researched the issue before removing removing her. You would likely have found at least one of the television appearances in which she states that she no longer eats those small amounts of seafood.

[4] This is already covered above. This is me adding Virender Sehwag back to the list and informing you that you failed to check the "Family" section, followed by you removing the less reliable sources (as expected) and modifying the reliable source so that it takes users directly to the family section on the page.

[5] This is you removing one of Allisyn Ashley Arm's several sources, though not the source that I used to determine her diet.

[6] Same Allisyn Ashley Arm source. I added it back by mistake. I thought it was the more reliable source. I didn't actually care if you removed this particular source as long as you didn't remove the person. It was one of the sacrificial supporting sources.

[7] Will Tuttle sources. All of these sources were good sources and I wanted all of them to remain. As I recall, this was brought to discussion and other editors did not agree with your belief that they were not valid sources. Thanks for reminding me about this. I'll make sure they're all added back in.

[8] Will Tuttle sources again

[9] Will Tuttle sources again

[10] This is you removing William John Sullivan because you didn't believe his website was his website. More details here

Why is that Heather Nicholson source even back in this list

I don't know. I didn't add it, and I'm not even remotely done validating sources on this list. I do, however, know for certain that Heather Nicholson is a vegan and I'm curious as to whether or not you even bothered checking for a better source before throwing a fit about this source.

Unfortunately, your additions are reverted most of the time because you have no regard for WP:RS

My edits aren't reverted most of the time. Are you referring to your reverting when I first started adding people to the List of vegetarians?

pretty much uses anything written on the internet as a source

Hogwash

Sadly, your involvement in this article has been detrimental: it has compromised the integrity of the list

The exact opposite is true. I have increased the integrity of the lists by removing errors and by removing people who do not qualify for the lists, and when I'm finally done with the lists the integrity will be flawless.

I have never added a single person to the list of vegans who was not a vegan and I have never added a single person to the list of vegetarians who was not a vegetarian.

On average, I spend two hours researching each person I add to the list to confirm their diet (for some, quite a bit longer). If I add someone to the list using a less-than-ideal source, that source is not what I used to confirm the person's diet.

For example, sometimes I'll find an article that is pretty good but not good enough to completely convince me, so I'll continue searching and will sometimes come across a television or radio broadcast in which the person discusses their diet and makes it 100% clear that he/she is vegan/vegetarian. Unfortunately, the television or radio broadcast will sometimes not be posted to the web in a way that allows for the creation of a proper Wikipedia reference, so I'll just use the less convincing source to create the ref needed to add the person to the list. I'm not concerned that the source will result in the person being removed from the list at a later date because the source is always good enough for the vast majority of editors, and because editors shouldn't be removing anyone from the list without first doing some research to make sure the person really should be removed from the list.

you have ignored consensus which was to not have images in the table

And what consensus would that be? If there was any consensus at all regarding table images, it was between me and SlimVirgin after you and Muleattack went MIA.

if that is the outcome I will revert the article to its last known configuration without the images and with the citation templates

I've already stated that I would restore the templated citations if not doing so would empower you to revert the list. If you attempt to revert the list even though I have stated this, I will report you and you'll be stopped. --Andomedium (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Any editor is entitled to challenge sources they regard as unreliable, and I did so through the proper channels by asking for a third opinion at RS/N, and I always honored their decision. If you don't like it, then tough, and I assure you once this abomination you've foisted on us all is wound back plenty more sources will be going to RS/N. The fact that you now admit you were baiting me into reverting you with deliberately poor quality sources(which is really what you were doing) does not reflect well. Playing the victim doesn't really wash either because there is no escaping the fact that it's not just me who is cheesed off with your behavior: Muleattack obviously feels disenfranchised by your actions too. In short the history of this article shows that whenever we had a disagreement about the sources it was ALWAYS me who sought a third opinion at RS/N, and NEVER you. The archives also show plenty of collaboration between Muleattack and myself in attempting to take this article forward, and the reason it didn't progress wasn't due to either one of us. I don't deny I have my own strong opinions about this article, but there is plenty of evidence of me seeking and taking on board other people's opinions, and I see very little in your case. Betty Logan (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Any editor is entitled to challenge sources they regard as unreliable, and I did so through the proper channels

Do you need me to go dig up all of the legitimate entries and sources you've deleted (largely due to your flawed, common-sense-lacking interpretation of Wikipedia's source guidelines) without going though any channels at all?

you were baiting me into reverting you with deliberately poor quality sources

Baiting you into reverting - no. Satisfying your hunger to delete other people's contributions - yes. Discovering that adding extra sources to a new entry tended to cause you to delete the less reliable sources and leave the most reliable source, rather than just completely deleting the entire entry - yes.

Playing the victim doesn't really wash either because there is no escaping the fact that it's not just me who is cheesed off with your behavior: Muleattack obviously feels disenfranchised by your actions too.

Victim of what? Of your deleting the people I was adding to the lists? I already told you I was concerned about the bizarre, territorial manner of your reverting in general, and your deleting of all those other people's contributions. I don't feel like a victim. If anything, I feel like the lists are the victims. I feel that a person like you is poison for Wikipedia. But I'll deal with that later.

the history of this article shows that whenever we had a disagreement about the sources it was ALWAYS me who sought a third opinion at RS/N, and NEVER you.

That's true... I didn't contact enough people about your bizarre territorial behavior and your insatiable desire to delete other people's contributions. I'll be sure to right that wrong.

this abomination you've foisted on us all

The thumbnail images that were preferred by every reader I surveyed, and which can be completely removed in a matter of seconds, are an "abomination" eh? Once again, you're venturing out of the realm of irritating and into the realm of amusing.

there is plenty of evidence of me seeking and taking on board other people's opinions, and I see very little in your case.

Ever since you and Muleattack disappeared, SlimVirgin and I have been the only editors working on these lists (though technically, before you disappeared, you weren't so much working on the lists as you were just deleting other people's contributions from them) and virtually every change that was made was done so through collaboration and the sharing of each other's opinions. --Andomedium (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• First of all, like most editors I get caught up in disputes from time to time but that doesn't make me uncollaborative. I've actually collaborated on many artices with many editors. I've also done a lot of peer reviewing as well where I've learned not to 'force' my views about an article onto the editors who work on it, like what we've seen here. A new direction was being discussed for this article last year as seen at Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Can_we_make_this_sortable.3F, with and even some experiments as seen at [12]. Those were abandoned after they hit a roadblock. Ironically, the solution that has been pushed through isn't that dissimilar and was certainly not incompatible with the original ideas for the article. The other two editors were familiar with these plans, and they were both aware that MuleAttack and I objected to the inclusion of images in the table, but still went ahead with that approach despite a further objection from Muleattack. Also, all the citation templates have been removed too which is expressly against WP:CITEVAR, which makes it much more difficult to maintain a consistent citation style. Adding the citation templates back to over 300 references would take much longer than reverting and adding back a few names that removed in a straight revert. The correct course of action should be 1) Revert 2) Restore removed names 3) Add a table format that everyone agrees on. Betty Logan (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Both you and Muleattack disappeared.

Your territorial mentality and objection to the images were (thankfully) no longer an issue. SlimVirgin and I were the remaining editors and there was consensus amongst us to creates tables with images.

Adding the templated references back to the list when they have such a detrimental effect on the loading time would be a ridiculous step backwards, but, I will add them back if you're otherwise going to be granted the power to revert all of the work that has been done. --Andomedium (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at your own mentality before casting aspersions on mine and MuleAttack's. As the discussions from last year about the future of the article show, both of us were open to suggestions and willing to collaborate, and neither of us were forcing conditions on to the other. Secondly, what is there to discuss about having images in the table? You either have them or you don't. Both Muleattack and I disagreed with your reason for their inclusion, so the discussion was over. And finally, the claim about the impact of loading times caused by reference citations is unproven. There have been lots of experiments carried out on lists much bigger than this one and to the best of my knowledge there hasn't been any empirically proven difference. Either way, the policy prohibits their removal when they are in use. And as for 'undoing' hundreds of hours of work you didn't seem too bothered about undoing hundreds of hours of my work. This list and the vegetarian one used to be mostly uncited and I spent many hours adding them, and yes with citation templates. We have citation templates because they help encourage editors to include the relevant information such as ISBNs, access dates, page numbers in books etc, which are often omitted, and they make it easier to maintain a consistent style. They also make batch processing by bots possible. The policy was pointed out to you but you ignored it. Objections to images in the table were made on more than one occasion and you ignored them. The article has become unreadable, and thanks to the removal of the citation templates much less manageable. So the best option is to put it back to its prior state, since re-adding a few names is much less time consuming than re-adidng 300 citation templates. Betty Logan (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about Muleattack's mentality. Muleattack was reasonable and I was hoping to continue discussion with him. Unfortunately he disappeared. You, however, were behaving territorial and irate from the beginning. Suspiciously so, in fact.

The claim about the negative affect on the loading time caused by the templated refs was tested (by me) before I converted them. The primary concern was the significant delay produced by the templated refs when previewing & saving edits. It's not a difficult thing to test .. feel free to run your own test.

You want to know what there is to discuss about adding table images?

Whether or not the positive aspects of adding the images outweigh the negative aspects to such an extent that they are worth adding.

When I talk about hundreds of hours of work being undone, I'm talking about you reverting contributions to the page such as: researching people and adding them to the list if they qualify, researching people and removing them from the list if they don't qualify, collecting and adding new information such as the images, birth years and occupations, finding and removing errors, etc.

I'm talking about you reverting such contributions .. erasing them.

Such contributions from you were not reverted. What happened in your case was a templated color coding system was removed and later voted out primarily because it was slowing page loading for no good reason. You claimed yourself that in the past you were in favor of removing the color coding but that you were prevented from doing so.

I don't know why I'm having to tell you so much about what actually happened a couple months ago. Do you honestly not remember or are you attempting to give a false impression about what actually happened?

The templated citation work that you claim to have done was not removed. The information still fully exists and still displays on the page as it did before. I understand the value of the templated refs and I prefer them. That is one of the primary reason that I saved them all for a future date when something has been done to keep them from so heavily affecting page loading time.

As far as ignoring objections to adding the images: Muleattack is the only one who actually began to engage in discussion about the images specifically and he received responses. You were still throwing a fit about the color coding being removed and presented only a general objection to a table with images in favor of a table that excluded images. I should also point out that, at that point in time, neither I nor SlimVirgin had decided on using a table with images. At the time, it was only a suggestion open to discussion. The primary focus at the time was the removal of the templated color coding system, the addition of some sort of table, and adding the vegans back to the list that you had removed. The decision to use a table with images was made after you and Muleattack disappeared in the infancy of the discussion, and after weighing the positive aspects against the negative.

The current list isn't unreadable in any way (are you being serious?) and the best option certainly is not to revert to a past state.

If you're going to need any more history lessons, please separate your points so that I can reply to each point directly, instead of having to dissect your block of text and determine the best way to produce an understandable response. --Andomedium (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)