Template talk:Food industry criticism

Organizations

I'm not thrilled with this label, since the two items in it aren't organizations at all. Sure, they're criticizing organizations (corporations), but the articles themselves aren't about the companies, just the criticisms of them. Anyone have any better ideas? "Articles"? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"Room for more topics to be added" edit

Jonpatterns made some edits to the template. I modified his edit so it only included links that were pertinent. I also cleaned up some formatting problems he introduced. He just undid my changes with the edit summary "I have allowed room for more topics to be added - please discussion if there is a disagreement". Okay, discussion is good. Here are my problems with the current edit:

1. It added a link to fast food and then criticism of fast food in parentheses next to it. Fast food (in general, which the link to fast food discusses) isn't the topic of this template. Why include it? And then why insert the article directly related to the topic of this template in parens? We don't need a link to a tangentially related subject in the template, just a link to an article directly pertinent.
2. The same goes for GMOs and then a link (in parens) to criticisms of them.
3. A line break was introduced after the fast food link, which I can only assume was a mistake; it isn't necessary and screws up the template rendering (it puts the next topic, GMO, on a new line).
4. It added a section on Criticism by country (a Good Thing). But it only needs to be titled Country or By Country (I opted for the terser version). Of course it is "Criticism". That's the whole topic of the template.
5. It added "China" and then the real topic—Food safety in China—in parens after it. That isn't necessary. I can see adding a country name like that, maybe, if there are several pertinent articles on that country. But in this case, we just have one. So I modified the edit to just include a link to the one article.

For a comparison, here is Jonpatterns last version, here is mine. Ignore the template deletion warning at top. Look down to the Concepts section, where the biggest differences begin. Discuss. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Frecklefoot Thanks for the information. I made a bold undo of some of your edits.

1. Fast food is a concept, and not all the concepts are criticisms - for example Fair Trade. To me I think it isn't clear to have a link to Criticism of Fast Food called just Fast Food. Also the template may potentially become less based on just criticism - see deletion discussion.

2. as above GMO is a concept, I think it is better to explicitly state it is criticism or change sub heading.

3. Line break was added to ensure Genetically modified food and their (controversies) where on the same line - not sure if there is a neater way to do this.

4. change to 'by country' - the only link I have found so far is Food Safety in China, not Criticism of Food Industry in China. Again I prefer to be explicit and allow room for additional articles

5. as above to allow room for more topics - and the topic isn't food industry criticism in China.

Jonpatterns (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Jonpatterns, thanks for being open to discussion:

1. Yes, fast food is a concept, but this template is still "Food industry criticism". Perhaps we should get rid of Fair trade if it isn't related to criticism. If we really want to include it, we'll have to rename the template. But for now, it is about criticism. I'd be open to renaming the link Fast food criticism since it's less wordy, even though it is redundant. If I'm looking in a template called "Food industry criticism", I'd a assume a link called "Fast food" in it is going to be criticism about fast food. And just hovering over it, I could tell that yes, indeed, it leads to an article about criticism of fast food.
2. Same as with fast food
3. We can't explicitly format content for particular screen resolutions. The best thing to do in this case would be to use the nowrap template: {{nowrap|text here}}. But we're not even on the same page here; I still don't think we need a link to the GMO article, just GMO criticism.
4. Good point. Food safety in China is not related to Food industry criticism; let's get rid of it.
5. See above. Nix the country section since the single article isn't related to food industry criticism.

It seems like you're concerned with broadening the scope of the template. That's fine, but for now, the template name is Food Industry Criticism. If it's decided to broaden the scope, we can talk about adding more topics then. But for now, let's keep it focused on the current topic.

Also, I see you made an edit to the template without a comment. I forget sometimes too, but always try to leave a comment mentioning what you did. Sometimes it's hard to tell with a compare. Thanks. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like from the deletion discussion that the templates scope may change to Media about the Food Industry, or something else. I'm not going to make any more changes until a decision has been made on that. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)