User talk:Andomedium/List of vegans/draft

Occupation Content

What should we include/exclude in the Occupation field?
For example, Elissa Sursara has the following listed on her page:
conservationist, naturalist, environmental commentator, research diver, documentary film maker, public figure, and actress
Should we include all of that in the Occupation field or exclude some of it?
My initial thought was to only exclude occupation items if the amount of text is great enough to cause the table row to stretch to a height beyond that which the person's image already stretches it to, but now I'm thinking that we should perhaps try to keep it minimal by using more general terms (for example: replace vocalist, guitarist and pianist with just the word musician) and by only including (at most) the four things that the person is most known for. --Andomedium (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree to keeping it short and general, unless the person is particularly well-known for one issue, e.g. famous as a pianist specifically. But for someone who is a pianist, singer, composer etc etc -- then musician is fine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. If, when we're done with everything else, you'd like to go through all entries and improve the occupation text of each, let me know before you begin as I have a way to make the process much less tedious/time-consuming. --Andomedium (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference Subpage

Could we create a subpage just for refs?

On the page, each person on the list would have a section and, in those sections, people could post whatever supporting refs/links they want, using whatever format they want, regardless of whether the source is trustworthy or in compliance with usual source guidelines.

We could then choose the one best source (out of all of the links/refs submitted) for a particular listed person and copy the info from it to make a nice minimal ref for the main page.
This way we can have a very nice, clean, uniform ref section on the main page without permanently changing/deleting anyone's refs, or omitting any data/links that may very well prove useful in the future.

I'm particularly fond of this idea because I don't want any person to ever be removed from the list because of a lack of supporting evidence. I'd rather there be an overabundance of supporting evidence.
If someone starts a dispute because they don't think a particular ref is trustworthy, we can direct them to the subpage where they might find evidence that satisfies them & ends the dispute.
If an original webpage url no longer works, we can check the subpage for an archive url.
If an archive url no longer works, we can check the subpage for the original webpage url or a second (or perhaps even a third) archive url.
If there is no working url at all for the ref, we can check to see if someone added a different reliable source that could be used to make a new ref. etc. --Andomedium (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Good idea about the subpage. Remember, too, that we can put multiple citations within one pair of ref tags, so you only have one footnote per person, which looks neater.

Yes, thanks for telling me about that method on the other talk page. I've been using it.

The only time that I've encountered an issue when using that method was when dealing with named refs.

I had to either not use the naming system and allow duplicate refs to exist, or give the person a second footnote. --Andomedium (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to convert the citation templates into ordinary refs? That should speed up load time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If we're in agreement on setting up that ref subpage, I'll clean up all of the refs so that each person has just one good ref on the main page (unless a person needs more than one for some unforeseeable reason) and those refs will be minimal & uniform (using formats similar, or identical, to those that you suggested).

The templated versions of the refs will still exist but they will be on the ref subpage.
--Andomedium (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the best location & name for this page would be. Do you? --Andomedium (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The best thing would be to place it in talk space; so for example Talk:List of vegans/sources or Talk:List of vegans/references. We can then add that as an archived page to the archive box on the talk page, which makes it easy for people to find. I'll do that if you like once it's set up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll be creating the page soon. --Andomedium (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Placeholder Image

Feel free to change the placeholder image (or anything else for that matter).
A couple thoughts:
A bare, colorless placeholder image creates obvious breaks in the list that make the list look incomplete. If a particular colorful pattern image were used instead, there wouldn't be such obvious breaks in the list.
So... the advantage of a bare, colorless image is that it screams out "this person needs an image" and may therefore result in more people adding images, and the disadvantage is that it creates ugly breaks in the list.
The advantage of a colorful pattern image is that it will get rid of the ugly breaks, and the disadvantage is that it might reduce the chances of people adding images. --Andomedium (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we could just leave the image parameter empty when there's no pic. Like this for Marieke Hardy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine .. there is currently no really good reason for having them.

Reasons for using the placeholder image:

1. To ensure that rows without images will still have a similar vertical height to those that do have images. The intention being to keep things fair and more uniform looking. However, because the heights of the images ended up varying so dramatically, the whole fair & uniform thing is pretty much 'out the window'.

2. To have something that conveys to readers the feeling that this notable person could have an image just like everyone else if only one were available. A placeholder image conveys that feeling better than a blank space. The hope, of course, being that the reader will feel motivated to upload an image for the notable person.

3. It gives readers something to click on. Rather than just seeing a blank space and briefly wondering why it's blank, they will instead have something to click on and when they click on it, they will be taken to the upload page which, hopefully, will convey to them that there is no image because one needs to be uploaded, and hopefully it will also cause them to consider finding and uploading an image. --Andomedium (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

4. It makes it easier for someone to add an image when editing the wikitext. The image line already exists in complete working form and all they need to do is replace the placeholder file name with the new file name.

5. If we use a certain colorful pattern image as the placeholder, we won't have the breaks in the list and the list should look nicer and more complete. I'll test this later and show an example if it looks considerably better. -- Andomedium (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. Aesthetically I think it's better without the placeholders, but if you prefer them, I don't mind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I replaced them with a little transparent image. As stated above, there is no especially good reason to have a placeholder image so if you can think of any reason that we might want to remove the transparent image, please let me know.

For example, might it not look so good when the list is being reviewed by others to determine if it's worthy of being a featured list? --Andomedium (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know anything about the placeholder issue. Maybe we could look at other featured lists to see what they do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. Thanks --Andomedium (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Former Vegans

Just some thoughts:
Do we want to keep the Former vegans section?
If so, do we want the section to have a table or should it just be a little text list near the bottom?
If the section does get a table, should we bother giving it flag & portrait images?
I'm currently leaning towards either removing the section or keeping it and allowing it to have a table with flag & portrait images just because it looks so much better.
My reason for thinking that perhaps the section shouldn't have a table and/or images is that it kinda makes the former vegans appear to be on the list of current vegans. --Andomedium (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly the same, and was going to propose removing it. It looks a bit odd, and almost accusatory -- as in, the ones who didn't make it, or couldn't stick with it, or something. I think this list should be a list of notable people who are vegans according to reliable sources (which in this case means according to themselves), and nothing else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Going live

I can find no errors in the current draft. If you want, you can copy it over to the main article while we're discussing/testing other things here. --Andomedium (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You should be the one to copy it over, given that you've done all the work. You've really done a briliant job! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's nice of you to say but I feel as though that's pretty much exactly what I should be saying to you.

Had you not come along, I'd still be battling Betty just to keep vegans on the list.

I could write an entire page solely about how much I appreciate your presence and the work you've been doing.

Enough of that though ... I'll copy it over so we can continue making this list awesome ^_^ --Andomedium (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it's copied over. I'm thinking we should continue to work on the page here. We just need to keep an eye on the main page so we can replicate any changes that other people make to it (if they're changes that should be kept). --Andomedium (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. Okay, I'm fine with continuing to develop the draft page first, then you can copy over as needed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I copied over the recent changes. We can go back to editing the List of vegans directly now. --Andomedium (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for doing that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Country Flags

By putting country flags next to people's names, it creates a strong association with the person and the country.
It feels like we're making these people into representatives of those countries.
Some of the people on the list may not want to be so strongly associated with the country they were born in. Some may even dislike the country they were born in and, if anything, would prefer to have a different flag next to their name, such as the flag of the country that they've lived in for a long time or have spent a lot of time supporting.
I wouldn't bother saying anything if this were a list of world leaders or a list of Olympic athletes, but for a list like this, a country flag seems like a not-so-appropriate thing.
With that said, I think that the flags make the list look more polished and complete and provide an additional piece of information, and I think we probably shouldn't remove them unless we can think of something else to put in their place.
Note: I do not feel strongly about this. This is just me nitpicking. The list is already so awesome that I can only nitpick. --Andomedium (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself about the country flags right next to their names. Perhaps add the flags once to the header next to the name of the country? Or remove them completely if you prefer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A flag on the header is a good suggestion. Hopefully we'll be able to think of something else to put next to the people's names. --Andomedium (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what I had in mind (see Australia). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, all done. Looks pretty bare by the names now. Hopefully we'll be able to find something else to put there. Maybe it'll turn out to be better with the portrait images positioned on the left side of the table since we have the large images along the right side of the page. The little flags that are by the headings right now are restricted by height (17px). Here is what they would look like restricted by width (30px). Feel free to switch to that version if you like it better. --Andomedium (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks good to me. It would be interesting to put the small images on the left. My only concern would be that a few of them are looking away from the text - as with the very first image of Portia de Rossi -- it's a nice photograph but ideally she should be looking toward the text, not off the page. Placing all the small images on the left will mean that quite a few will be looking entirely off the page. Still, it might be worth trying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about the direction that the people are facing. That's an interesting point. I'm going to start a separate section for this subject. I like the current state of the country flags. --Andomedium (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Featured-List Quality

I don't know what changes will make a list more or less likely to become a featured list, so anytime I make a suggestion or a change that might make the list less likely to become featured (even a little less likely), please bluntly tell me so.
If I can undo any changes, or make any new changes, to increase the chances of producing a featured list, I'll gladly do so, regardless of how much time/effort it might take.
Note: I'll never get irritated or offended by anything you say so feel free to always bluntly tell me whatever's on your mind. --Andomedium (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think to become featured we will have to remove the citation templates -- not that templates are a bar to becoming featured (there are lots of featured lists and articles that use templates), but with this many the load time is very slow. If that process can be automated, that would be wonderful; if not, I'm willing to help do it manually.

I also think we should bundle refs so that we have one footnote per person, for the sake of neatness, but that's just my preference -- that would not affect whether it becomes featured.

The biggest obstacle to featured status would be if the quality of the references were poor, or outdated, or if there were dead links. So basically every reference would have to be checked to make sure it does say the person is a vegan, to get archived copies if the link is dead, and to make reasonably sure there has been no change in their status since the date of the latest source we cite.

Thank you for the information. If you think of anything else (minor or major) that might help, please let me know. The refs will all be converted soon. Source/link validity checking will be the most time-consuming process, even though I'll be able to automate a fair amount of it. I have that task positioned near the bottom of the to-do list right now. I was hoping to come back to it after we add the tables & everything to the list of vegetarians. --Andomedium (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if I do anything to the page (e.g. adding more images, or anything else) that you don't like, feel free to undo it. You have a handle on what's needed here, so I'm happy to defer to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I like everything you've been doing. If I have any thoughts/suggestions related to any changes/additions you make, I'll post something on this talk page or the main talk page. --Andomedium (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep a closer eye on this page. For some reason I missed your previous posts and was slow to respond -- apologies for that. By the way, if the automated conversion of refs is a horrible task for you, don't feel you have to continue with it (I have no idea what it involves). In other words, just because we say we're going to do something doesn't mean we have to, if it turns out to be more onerous than anticipated. The beauty of being volunteers is that we're allowed to change our minds. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries :) Writing the scripts/programs and watching them do the work for me usually falls somewhere between nonirritating and fun. The refs are already converted, I'm just working on some other stuff before I put them in place. --Andomedium (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, a new list! List of animal rights advocates. No section headers for now, as it's still quite short. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No words to describe the level of awesomeness. I can't believe you put that much together already. I absolutely love it and look forward to contributing to it! --Andomedium (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! And please feel free to edit it whenever the urge takes you. I'm trying to make it less US/UK-focused, but it's not easy as we lack either the articles or the sources. In addition, the AR movement has been heavily influenced by people in the UK/US, so that bias is kind of built in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The page is loading much faster now without the templates, particularly diffs and preview. Thank you, its brilliant! I've never seen that automated before -- I've actually done it manually once or twice on long articles that weren't loading -- you can imagine that nightmare. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely better now when doing full-page previews, and removing the templates manually would definitely be a very unpleasant thing.

Unless you can think of any other changes we could make to this page (minor or major) I'm going to start on the List of vegetarians, then I'll return to this page later to resume work on the references. --Andomedium (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. The only thing the vegans list needs now is for the sources to be checked (a horrible job), and citation styles to be made consistent (as in when to use a period, comma, how to write the date, etc). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that source checking will be time consuming. Here's a section for talk about the citation styles. --Andomedium (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Image column position

Having the images in the far left column is the more standard and expected choice. Having the images at their current location is more interesting looking and gives a different feel. Instead of being the primary focus of each entry, the images become more like an additional piece of information, like the occupation. Also, having the images as the primary focus might not be such a good idea when there are images missing for some entries. There is also the previously mentioned matter of the direction each person is facing in the images. --Andomedium (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's what it looks like with the images on the left. --Andomedium (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks really good. The images looking off the page look fine too. The only objection might be the one you raised above, that having the image as the primary focus will look odd when it's missing. I'm thinking of moving the images on the animal rights advocates list to the second column just after the name. I tried it out on preview, and it looks good.

After I set up the tables on the List of vegetarians, I'll try some other things related to the image column, including shifting over to the second column to see how it looks.

If you decide to shift the images on the List of animal rights advocates, let me know and I'll shift them to save some time. In fact, if you ever need help with any tedious/time-consuming/repetitive tasks, on any of your pages, please let me know. I'll be happy to help. --Andomedium (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I've currently got them in the third column; not sure whether I like it -- List of animal rights advocates. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I created Portal:Animal rights today. It's still pretty basic. I wonder if it would be worth creating portals for veganism/vegetarianism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That's really great! I don't know much about portals, but I'll be sure to learn more about them now. To say the least, I'm very happy that you made that page, and the animal rights advocates list. --Andomedium (talk)

Reference formats

Date
I've been using the year-month-day format (2012-05-27) because it appears to be more widely recognized and contains no words from any language, but we can use whichever format you think will be best. --Andomedium (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

CITE warns against using this, and I think the MoS does too, because people write it or interpret it differently, e.g. 2012-05-12 could be read as December 5 or 12 May. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, when cleaning up refs and adding new refs, I'll use this format: 27 May 2012 --Andomedium (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Always use archive URL
You mentioned on the other page that we should use either the original page URL or the archive URL, but not both.
Should we then go with an archive URL in every reference since it's more reliable than using the original page URL?
Keep in mind that we'll always have the original page URL on the source page in case the archive were to go permanently offline or something. --Andomedium (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen the archived page be used instead of the live page where the live page is available. But if the page looks inherently unstable we could do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to know how long a web page will remain at its location.

If a person is removed from the list because of a dead link, we'll have the source page to help us quickly put the person back on the list but we can likely avoid the removal altogether if we add one archive URL to each citation.

I'm currently planning to use just the original URL and then deal with people being removed because of dead links as it occurs. --Andomedium (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Minimal
How minimal can we make the web page refs?
Could we go with just a link (hyperlinked title) and nothing else, since the rest of the information (author, date, publisher) could be obtained from the web page (or the source page) if someone should happen to need it?
Or might that have a negative effect when reviewers are reviewing the list? --Andomedium (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

We're supposed to include full citations. See WP:CITE for the citation guideline, though it's a bit of a nightmare to read. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I read that page a while back and, as I recall, it talked little about what is required and a lot about what is typically included.

I currently intend to use the following formats based on those examples which you provided on the other page (a bot removed them by the way). Let me know if anything should be changed.

For books:

Smith, John. Name of Book. Name of Publisher, 2012, p. 1.

For newspaper articles:

Flood, Alison. "John Kinsella writes of poetry's 'responsibility to bring change'", The Guardian, 14 December 2011.

For articles on the web:

Flood, Alison. "John Kinsella writes of poetry's 'responsibility to bring change'", The Guardian, 14 December 2011.

For articles on the web that don't have a date:

Flood, Alison. "John Kinsella writes of poetry's 'responsibility to bring change'", The Guardian, Retrieved 14 December 2011.

For other web pages:

Konietzko, Bryan. "Random End-Of-The-Week Musings", Tumblr, 25 May 2012.

Allisyn Ashley Arm's confirmed twitter account states that she's vegan, Twitter, Retrieved 21 April 2012.

Peta's Sexiest Vegetarian Celebrities of 2011 - Past Winners, PETA, Retrieved 1 June 2012.

--Andomedium (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stick to that. If you see me do differently, just give me a nudge, because it'll mean I've forgotten. The only think I would suggest changing is the comma before the retrieved dates. I would write period, then Retrieved upper case; or comma, then retrieved lower case; but not comma, Retrieved upper case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! --Andomedium (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

People with non-English articles

It's okay to include people on the list even if their only Wikipedia article isn't in English, right?
If so, do we have to include a parenthesized note about the language like they've been doing here? --Andomedium (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. Maybe we could look at the featured list criteria or best practices to see what others do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Vegan qualification

We should probably determine what exactly qualifies someone to be added to the List of vegans and what qualifies them to be removed from it.
I'm going to start with extreme/silly examples then we'll work from there (try not to laugh too hard).
Note: You don't actually have to answer these questions. I just wrote them to help us determine what exactly qualifies someone for the list. --Andomedium (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

1. If someone adheres to a vegan diet for eighty years then starts eating meat during the last year of their life, do they make the list?

No, because their last known status is non-vegan.

2. If someone eats meat every day throughout their entire life and then adheres to a vegan diet during the last week of their life, do they make the list?

Yes, as long as a reliable source states that, during that week, the person was vegan or was eating only plant foods.

3. If someone adheres to a vegan diet every other month, should we add them to the list during the months when they're adhering to a vegan diet and remove them during the months when they're not?

Yes, if there is a reliable source which states that this is the case.

They should not be added to the list at all because they stated that they intend to consume non-vegan products at some point in the future.

But, what if the person doesn't intend to consume non-vegan products but rather it just keeps happening, by chance, every other month .. and the press reports on the person's diet status every month?

4. If someone adheres to a vegan diet at all times except for a single glass of milk on their birthday, do they make the list?

They should be removed from the list on their birthday and put back on after that day has ended.

They should not be added to the list at all because they stated that they intend to consume a non-vegan product at some point in the future.

5. If a meat-eater becomes imprisoned in a prison that only serves plant-based food, does he make the list?

Yes, if a reliable source states that he is vegan or that he is eating only plant foods.

6. If a meat-eater slips into a coma and is fed intravenously using only plant-based solutions, does she make the list?

Yes, as long as a reliable source states that she is vegan or that she is being sustained using only plant-based solutions.

7. If a meat-eater is suffering from debilitating dementia and his family chooses to feed him only baby food that contains no animal products, does he make the list?

Yes, if a reliable source states that he is vegan or that he is being sustained using only plant foods.

8. If a child eats no animal products because his parents won't allow it, does he make the list?

Yes, if a reliable source states that he is vegan or that he eats no animal products, that's all that matters.

9. A celebrity becomes trapped in her car by an avalanche. She survives for two weeks on a half-bottle of water and some food she had in her purse. She had a small amount of beef jerky which she ate during the first week. She then ate only vegetable crackers for the last week of her life. She documented the whole thing on a camera which was found later by police. Does she make the list?

Yes, as long as a reliable source reported that she ate only vegetable crackers during the last week.

LOL! Great questions. (I like the one about becoming a vegan against your will because you're in a coma.) :D

I think the only criteria we can use is if someone says "I am a vegan" or a reliable source reports that they are. And by "vegan" we understand that they eat no animal products, so if they're later spotted by a reliable source tucking into steak at a restaurant, we remove them from the list, even if their website still says they're vegan. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Just adding to the above that the subject doesn't have to use the words "I am a vegan." She might say, "I don't eat meat, fish, eggs or dairy" or something similar. We should be careful not to interpet anything too liberally, but we don't need an outright declaration in a specific form of words. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I added some answers based on what you said. They're not necessarily my answers; just answers added to keep the refining process going. If you disagree with any of the answers, please post a statement below the answer, then I'll post a counter-statement if I can think of one. The goal being to establish solid guidelines for this list that can be used to easily settle disputes. (I added one more question too.) --Andomedium (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine mostly, except for the bits about removing and restoring people according to whether they have a glass of dairy milk on their birthday, etc (e.g. 3, 4 and 9). The only thing we base the list on is what reliable sources say -- the most recent reliable sources. If they say someone is a vegan, that's usually good enough for us. We can't get into details about someone falling off the wagon occasionally, unless they say something like "I'm a vegan, but every Tuesday I have a hamburger followed by dairy ice-cream" -- that means they're not a vegan, no matter what they say. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I added more to #3 and #4.

Why is it that #6 makes the list but not #9? --Andomedium (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You might find Paris exemption interesting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting for determining who goes on the list or just interesting in general? --Andomedium (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting only to illustrate that some vegans think it's okay to lapse occasionally, and some don't. So I don't think we need to be terribly rigid here -- in the sense of removing someone for 24 hours if he has a glass of dairy milk on his birthday - like making someone sit in the naughty chair. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I think I may have given the wrong impression (should have used a different section title perhaps).

I'm not trying to determine what qualifies a person as vegan but rather what qualifies them for this particular list of vegans.

For example, you mentioned 24 hours.

If removing them for 24 hours is silly, exactly how many hours would it take before it's not considered silly?

It is because there are different views on what qualifies someone as vegetarian/vegan that we need to have rigid rules for what qualifies them for these particular lists.

If we have these pre-defined rules, we can quickly settle (or completely prevent) disputes stemming from conflicting views.

Some examples, off the top of my head, are Lee Hyori being removed for occasional seafood eating, Bill Clinton being removed because of a piece of turkey on Thanksgiving and another celebrity (forgot the name) being removed because she Tweeted that she's now going vegan but hasn't been vegan. There were no rigid rules in place that could be used to determine whether or not these people should actually be removed from the list. --Andomedium (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It raises interesting questions about intention. What about someone who intended to be a vegan, and for 20 years had made every effort to avoid animal products, but who had inadvertently eaten them every day because he had misread the label on his favourite ketchup. :)

As for who to include, by all means develop a list of criteria -- you could be right that it'll help to settle disputes in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start on a list of criteria. --Andomedium (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list in Q&A format. Below that list are the silly questions again but with answers based on the Q&A info. It's just a starting point. Please let me know what you think should be added, removed or changed. Once we have these guidelines, I'll be able to finish work on the List of vegetarians. --Andomedium (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks great! The only thing I would disagree with is: "For this particular list, a person is no longer vegan if they knowingly and voluntarily ingest a non-vegan substance." That would mean that someone who occasionally engages in the Paris exemption is not a vegan, no matter how rare that is.

Personally I wouldn't remove someone if they said: "I've been a steadfast vegan for 30 years, but every few years I can't resist stealing a spoonful of my wife's dairy ice-cream." But I would remove them if a reliable source saw them tucking into steak in a restaurant. So I think we ought to consider leaving room for editorial judgment. Having said that, I'm happy to defer to your guidance about this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What I had in mind is making that editorial judgment in advance and using the judgement to create a list of rules which covers all scenarios so that future conflicts can be quickly ended, or prevented entirely.

A list of rules that will make it easy for anyone (regardless of their personal viewpoint) to determine whether or not a person can be added to this particular list.

We can allow for the ingestion of occasional non-vegan substances but, if we do so, we'll need to work out actual ratios to include in the rules.

What one person considers to be an obviously acceptable infraction may be viewed as completely unacceptable by another and there will be a conflict between them if there isn't a predefined rule to tell them exactly how much of an infraction is acceptable for this particular list.

Thank you very much for taking the time to keep checking this talk page by the way. I know you're busy with other projects. --Andomedium (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I agree that a list of inclusion criteria would make things easier, so by all means go ahead with it. My only concern is that people will ignore it and regard it as original research. Bill Clinton is a good example. His doctor has him on a vegan diet, he calls himself a vegan, and other reliable sources do the same, but he admits to eating a mouthful of turkey once a year. If we were to remove him on those grounds, we'd be placing our own judgment ahead of the sources, and people would probably object to that. So that's my only concern -- that the sources have to be given priority, unless they've made an obvious error. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make an adjustment for cases in which the source refers to the person as vegan while also stating that the person ingests non-vegan substances. --Andomedium (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Reflinks program

Someone used Reflinks on the page.
It fixed some things that should have been fixed (things that were on my to-do list which would have been fixed soon anyway) but then it did some other things like re-templating untemplated refs and removing the height restriction that I put in place to deal with unusually tall images.
Do you happen to know if this is a common occurrence? Did the person perhaps make a mistake?
You can see the changes here. --Andomedium (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)