User talk:Anoted

'''Welcome to the Thanks for your edits! We hope you'll keep on editing with us. This is a great time to have joined us, because now you can play the Game of Rassilon with us and win cool stuff! Well, okay, badges. That have no monetary value. And that largely only you can see. But still: they're cool!

We've got a couple of important quirks for a Wikia wiki, so let's get them out of the way first. British English, please We generally use British English round these parts, so if you're American, please be sure you set your spell checker to BrEng, and take a gander at our spelling cheat card. Spoilers aren't cool We have a strict definition of "spoiler" that you may find a bit unusual. Basically, a spoiler, to us, is anything that comes from a story which has not been released yet. So, even if you've got some info from a BBC press release or official trailer, it basically can't be referenced here. In other words, you gotta wait until the episode has finished its premiere broadcast to start editing about its contents. Please check the spoiler policy for more details. Other useful stuff Aside from those two things, we also have some pages that you should probably read when you get a chance, like:
 * the listing of all our help, policy and guideline pages
 * our Manual of Style
 * our image use policy
 * our user page policy
 * a list of people whose job it is to help you

If you're brand new to wiki editing — and we all were, once! —  you probably want to check out these tutorials at Wikipedia, the world's largest wiki:
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial

Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes like this: ~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks for becoming a member of the TARDIS crew! If you have any questions, see the Help pages, add a question to one of the Forums or ask on my talk page. -- CzechOut (Talk) 22:51, 2013 March 31

Don't attack the messenger in forums
For the benefit of future readers of forums, it's important that threads be kept on topic. If you think that a person is slighting you in a forum, it's probably a better idea to speak directly with them on their talk page than to bring your emotions to a forum discussion. Forum discussions are often used years later later as a snapshot of opinion on a particular topic. Two years from now, for instance, it might be very helpful for a person who has similar questions to you to read the discussion you started.

But it will be less helpful if there's an interpersonal flare-up there.

I'm sorry you feel disaffected by the help I tried to provide. Your comments make me feel similarly disaffected because I've worked really hard to help you. Indeed, I have spent much of this week on your specific issues. I dropped what I was doing to rush to help you with your browser concerns. I did some technical research to help you, and have even collaborated with other Wikians in order to make sure I was giving you sound advice. And I have prepared lengthy, detailed responses to every question you've asked at the other thread.

Only a person who wanted to welcome you would have spent so much energy. It's extremely disheartening to find that this effort appears to have been in vain. 01:41: Fri 12 Apr 2013


 * diff of the following reply at CzechOut's talk page
 * I do appreciate the time and effort you expended, and you're right, I should have split that message in two and posted the later half on your talk page.


 * And you're right, the thread did start as asking about policy. But after the first few posts I'd been clearly informed and it transitioned into a discussion about editing. As in how to edit with an understanding of the policy. There was still a heavy focus on policy and clarifications but the bulk of the discussion was on how to deal with certain situations and how to act on policy.


 * I understand that I use hyperbole and I do understand how that led to you thinking that I was talking about a visual problem. My frustration really built when I got answers to things that weren't problems, after I'd taken the time to clear up confusions and state unequivocally that that wasn't the problem. My real frustration was that it didn't feel like a discussion: I felt that I wasn't being listened to. I can understand how you thought I might be a bit more familiar with the biggest wiki in the world, but once I said no, that I wasn't, it was really annoying to be asked if I was sure. It might have been said jokingly, but tone doesn't translate online and combined with everything else it just exacerbated things.


 * Partially it's something that had really been building on the thread. I felt like you were constantly answering not quite the question I had asked. That, and the fact that I had to constantly repeat myself--I felt a little bit like I was banding my head against a wall.


 * When you replied to me on the thread:
 * "all I wanted was a yes or no", and on the other says, "I wanted to know if there were exceptions"


 * That's a perfect example of what I mean. I wanted to know if there were exceptions and how to apply policy in certain editing situations, but once you said yes to my question (If a link fits the basic requirements of not having been linked earlier in the article, and can be an article, MUST it be linked?) then I didn't need to know anymore. As far as I understood you, you were telling me that there were no exceptions. That I didn't need to better understand how to apply policy because there were never exceptions. If it could be linked it was required that it be linked. If things are truly that black and white then yes or no is really all I need.


 * And when I said that I only wanted a yes or no, that was because I felt like you had been piling on. You said yes, there are no exceptions and then followed it up by saying that a lot. I had asked a series of questions. And answering the later question was dependent on a particular answer to the first question. I was asking, is it A or B? And every question after that was predicated on the first answer being B. So when you went through all of my questions and basically said "it's A, it's still A, we follow policy so it's A," I didn't feel so great.


 * You also really confused me. Your first really long post came immediately after SOTO's fairly long post. And you said some things which seemed to contradict what SOTO said. I hadn't needed additional clarification after reading SOTO's comment, but then I read your comment and was quite a bit more confused than I had been. I'm actually still a little confused about that. I'm not sure if you and SOTO have different opinions of what policy means and on how to edit, or if you're trying to tell me the same thing but it's just not quite coming across. It would be helpful to know if you think that advice was correct. Anoted ☎  03:22, April 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to tell you that you've tired me out. I've spent a lot of time with you this week, and it's only made you angry.  So I hope you'll forgive me if I cut my losses and bow out. The only thing I really want to stress is that I feel like I did answer your questions thoughtfully and carefully, even if you believe I didn't.


 * Oh, and I guess there's this. You were puzzled by differences between what I said and what SOTO did. If you violate our linking policy, there's not much SOTO can do about it. I, on the other hand, can stop you from editing here. SOTO has edited diligently and in usually good faith for the four months he's been with us, but if he and I render a split decision, the tie probably goes to me.  Dunno if that helps or not.  04:53: Fri 12 Apr 2013


 * diff of the following reply at CzechOut's talk page
 * I was hoping for you to weigh in on the comment specifically, but that's fine, thanks. Anoted ☎  05:16, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Anoted, you were the one being attacked. I've never seen such condescension on a message board than in his replies to your very innocent questions. You were only asking for clarification and he was just insulting. Yet, you kept trying to explain what you were asking about. You stuck with that discussion far longer than I would have. There's more I'd like to say about reading that thread but I think this is a family-friendly site. The admins do seem intent on driving people away who might want to make a contribution and help out. If that is how someone who is trying to do a good job is treated, well, maybe your work would be better appreciated elsewhere.


 * diff of the following reply from 69.125.134.86's talk page
 * I really appreciated your comment of support on my talk page. I was really surprised by the tone on the forums, and thought for a bit that maybe it was just me and that I was reading more into it then was really there. This came from wondering why the hell I was the only one who seemed to see it. I've since read some threads that I didn't participate in and was just floored at how it seemed like the community accepted certain people being outright insulting. I'm finding it easier to just avoid the forums and talk pages unless absolutely necessary. While I love the communal nature of wikis and normally would participate vigorously in discussion and turn to people for advice and mentoring, I find it easier to shy away from this community as much as possible. Anyway, I really appreciate your taking the time to come to my talk page and let me know I wasn't alone. Anoted ☎  02:06, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Image rules
Please familiarise yourself with T:ICC and T:GTI, our two handy guides to image use on this wiki. I've had to delete some of your images for contravening these rules. Specifically, images should be widescreen where possible and cannot be png format if screenshots and must be less than 100kb — that's kilobytes  in most circumstances. Thanks. :) 11:11: Fri 12 Apr 2013

Linking tips
In reviewing your recent contributions, I've noticed a few patterns in your editing that are wasting your time. Linking is quite a bit more flexible that your edits indicate you believe. In general you seem to be using pipe tricks in unusual ways.

Hope you found that helpful, and that my suggestions will save you a few keystrokes as you edit with us. 00:11: Mon 15 Apr 2013

Please use past tense
Please note that we use past tense around here for in-universe articles. Your recent edit to stethoscope is improperly in present tense and should be corrected. Please see T:TENSES for more. Thanks! 18:40: Tue 16 Apr 2013
 * Thanks for that fix! It's perfect.  Note that you can use, and indeed are sort of encouraged to use, present tense in the "behind the scenes" sections of articles. It's not required, but it usually makes it easier for readers to detect the change between info that actually comes from a narrative source, and that which doesn't.  See "Kookaburra" for one example of the hard break between perspectives.   19:08: Tue 16 Apr 2013

Leave incarnation exposed
Before you get too far in your appreciated efforts to link things, please do take note of T:DOCTORS (and for that matter T:ROMANA and T:K9). Where there are multiple, numbered versions of thing, you generally want to leave that number visible to readers. We shouldn't assume that readers will know that Donna travelled with the Tenth Doctor, because not every reader will have the same level of knowledge about the series as fans do. So: the Tenth Doctor is preferred over the Doctor Thanks :) 00:40: Tue 23 Apr 2013

Image deletion
diff of the following message on CzechOut's talk page

You deleted Painting of Clara-merchandise.jpeg, and I'm not entirely clear on why. It was under 250px which I can fix, but you said that there were other problems? I'm not entirely clear on the jpeg thing, T:ICC says that they are fine. Was there anything else? Anoted ☎ 00:26, April 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well T:ICC says pretty bluntly ".jpg only for photographs" not .jpeg, .JPEG. or .JPG — just .jpg. This precision is important to a number of automated processes.  Also, it's unclear what exactly you're going to use it for.  Are you planning on starting a page about the merchandising item?  That's the only acceptable use for it.  I think I deleted it mainly because there was no real evidence that you had started such a real world page, and I didn't want it spreading out to an in-universe page like Painting (The Bells of Saint John). If it's on an in-universe page, it must be drawn from Bells and it must, perhaps ironically, not be in portrait orientation.  Widescreen only.   00:53: Wed 24 Apr 2013
 * diff of my reply on CzechOut's talk page
 * Ok, I see what you're getting at. There really is no in-universe use for it because it can't be considered cannon, but if there was a way for it to be considered canon (would the actual prop count, if it were sold or on display) it's still in the shape of a portrait, being that it's, well, a portrait. I find that insanely frustrating. Is there a reason behind that? Images can come from books as well as tv, are those allowed to be in portrait alignment in-universe? Also, is there a particular reason that some pages don't have an "in-universe" or "real world" tag on them? Anoted ☎ 00:58, April 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, lotta questions there!


 * Even if a picture was taken of the actual prop, it still wouldn't be usable by us, because it's not in-narrative. We consistently enforce this in a lot of circumstances.  Colour imagery of the black and white error isn't allowed, because it obviously wasn't taken with the cameras used to film the series, and therefore can't be in-narrative.  Promotional images of actors in costume aren't the same thing as images of the characters they portray. A concept image of a sonic screwdriver isn't the same thing as a picture of the sonic screwdriver.  And so on.
 * There is indeed a rationale for preferring widescreen. You can see some examples at T:GTI of what happens when portrait orientation is allowed to run amuck.  To explain further, widescreen orientation, and at the very least 4:3, is always possible with material sourced from TV, and so is an easy standard to set.  Since the bulk of our pictures in fact come from TV, TV should naturally control the setting of the standard.  Comics can almost always be cropped to at least 4:3 as well, and then they can't, they can usually be cropped to 3:3 (square).  Square is also the orientation of audio covers.    So that really leaves book and magazine covers.  Since these are almost always used on pages that will have text which exceeds the length of an infobox, it poses no layout issues for them to remain in portrait orientation.  But for in-universe articles, portrait orientation would too frequently mean that the length of the infobox would exceed the length of the accompanying text. And finally, as regards pictures of art specifically, preferring widescreen means that we often cut off parts of the finished product, and thereby don't offend whatever copyrights might still be in place on the artwork.  Remember, the point of pictures is identification, not replication.  It really doesn't matter to identification that you can't see the whole picture, as with The Church at Auvers or Mona Lisa or what have you.
 * There's no such thing as an in-universe tag (tophat). A page without a tophat is assumed to be in-universe. Since the beginning of the wiki, in-universe pages have been considered to be "articles" whilst  pages have always been called "real world articles" or "in-universe articles".   and  have always been deemed to be "exceptions to the norm".  If you think it would bring clarity to the wiki for in-universe articles to actually bear a tophat, please bring it up at the forum and get others discussing your proposal.  It's certainly a technical possibility, but no one has ever, to my knowledge, proposed such a tophat.   01:36: Wed 24 Apr 2013

Categories
Please don't add category:human whatever to pages that are already in category:whatever from the real world. If a person is "from the real world", he or she is definitionally a human. You're actually introducing category recursion, which is contrary to T:RECURSION. 00:02: Thu 25 Apr 2013
 * diff of the following reply at CzechOut's talk page
 * Yeah, I noticed that a few minutes ago. I made Artists from the Real World a subcat of Human Artists because it wasn't already. I'm in the middle of fixing the dupes. Anoted ☎  00:04, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Date pages
Consequent to your recent bug report at The Drax Cave, I've had occasion to review your work on year pages. It's important that you follow standard procedures even on these types of pages. You'll notice that Shambala108 has sort of quietly corrected your work to the correct standard. {|class=wikitable !Your way !Shambala's way

Events
In 2604, Enlightenment, in the form of the diamond, was offered to Bernice Summerfield by two Eternals, Ramond Hardy and Barron. (AUDIO: The Heart's Desire)

In 2604, Enlightenment, in the form of the diamond, was offered to Bernice Summerfield by two Eternals, Ramond Hardy and Barron. (AUDIO: The Heart's Desire)
 * }

See the difference? All articles must have leads and the topic of the page must be in bold text. It is incorrect to start an article with a section head. And besides, "events" is a horrible section head for a date page because everything is an event on a date page. It's a complete waste of space.

Will you occasionally find some pages that still have this older format? Yes. But remember that a rule is not invalidated simply because it is violated. Just because you go 75 doesn't mean you've magically raised the speed limit from 65. It just means you're speeding.

Additionally, please note that a page which is wholly comprised of uncited statements, like 1847, is subject to immediate deletion, which is why it has been deleted. Please do not start pages unless you have a valid source for at least one of the statements. Really, you shouldn't be making any statements without a source, but there are times when you might leave in someone else's statement and flag it with. 13:36: Thu 25 Apr 2013

Museums and libraries
It may just be a matter of preference; some people like lists and others prefer paragraphs. But in general, it's better to have paragraphs whenever possible.

The museum page, as you can tell from the lead sentence, is about any/all museums in the Doctor Who universe. If any are missing, it's just because someone hasn't added them to the page. If you know of any that are missing, feel free to add them.

The library page, I feel, would be improved by changing the list to paragraphs, with a description and sources for each library on the list. Since I don't have all the books/audios/comics involved, it will take a bit of work to click on each link and find info about each one. So I will probably put that one off for a while. Shambala108 ☎  04:21, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * For the official policy on lists v paragraphs, you can visit Tardis:Lists. Shambala108 ☎  05:23, April 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * diff of the following reply on Shambala108's talk page
 * You mentioned that it's better to have paragraphs are frowned upon. When exactly are lists appropriate? I'm finding a lot of variation and it's a little confusing. For example Type 102 has a "See Also" section that links to two other TARDIS types. But there are lots of TARDIS variants that aren't linked. Some of those pages have small See Also sections, some don't. This is more than a little confusing. Is it just people adding what they know or is there some method to this (seeming) madness? Anoted ☎  15:49, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Dates
diff of the following message on Shambala108's talk page

Since you've been doing a tonne of editing on years pages, I figured I'd ask you about a recent edit of mine. I edited the page to make it more readable, adding ths, sts, and rds, but before I went off and continued doing this I figured I'd ask if there was a reason that you hadn't done this when you edited the page before me. Anoted ☎  15:20, April 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * If you look at Tardis:Dates, you will see that date page titles have to follow a specific guideline, but within the article itself, the format is a matter of preference. So to answer your question, I didn't change the dates for two reasons: it was extra work that had nothing to do with what I was fixing, and I prefer the way it was written. Shambala108 ☎  15:31, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

De-orphaning
Hey, since you're on a de-orphaning kick (thanks, by the way!), give me about 1 hour to let the bot do an updated round. I haven't done one since 3Q last year. Some of the stuff on the list, like slow bowler isn't actually orphaned at the time you're encountering it. I'll let you know when a fresh list is available for use. 17:43: Fri 26 Apr 2013
 * diff of the following replies on CzechOut's page
 * Does the bot update Special:Lonely Pages, or Category:Please add to this page in other articles? Is it better that I work from one or the other? Anoted ☎  17:51, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * On the subject of orphans, is a transclusion enough to keep something from being orphaned? Anoted ☎  17:55, April 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, that's a good question. Transclusion is really unusual for a normal page.  I honestly haven't ever tested whether that wards off "lonely" status, because normal pages aren't transcluded.  As for which is better, there's no doubt that the bot-generated please add links to this page in other articles is more accurate than the MediaWiki-generated report. However, it does depend on me actually running it for you. For instance, it's correctly rejecting a number of pages that Special:Lonelypages is currently saying are lonely.  (The difference between the two lists is about 10 pages.)  So any time you want me to refresh the list, give me nudge and I'll give you a fresh list.


 * This time took longer than usual just cause I hit a little snag my end. Normally, it's about a 15-20 minute job. We're all done now, though.


 * (By the way, there's no need for you to actually go back and strip away . As long as you keep track of where you are on the list, and give me a nudge every now and again to clean it up, you can safely focus on just the not-doable-by-a-bot work of creating links.  18:26: Fri 26 Apr 2013


 * 54 was on the lonely pages list even though it had a transclusion. I did link it a few more times for good measure, but that's what prompted the question. It seems that years are the type of pages to be in this position not-infrequenly.
 * Also, when un-orphaning, I don't actually go in order. I click on pages that I know I can un-orphan or just ones that sound cool...that still good? Also, Special:Lonely Pages, how frequently does it update? I thought it was once a day-do you tend to update Category:Please add to this page in other articles more frequently than that? Anoted ☎  18:34, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * MW reports (Special pages) purport to be on a daily schedule. This is, however, a lie.  You'll note that the top of these reports say that the pages were updated at precisely 02:00 on April 26.  It always says 02:00, but it almost never really is.  It's roughly daily, but there are many days where it's just flatly broken.  The bot can generate a list that is absolutely current.  Special:LonelyPages is almost never truly current.  Just ask me to run the bot again and I'll do it.  Provided I'm here, I'm definitely the source of the most current list. And as we just discovered, the MW list was about 10% wrong.


 * As for the transclusion stuff, okay, I guess that's a kind of transclusion. That just means the link is created by an automated process, and the template with that automated process is then transcluded.  In other words, there's not a hard-coded link to 54 in ; it's a mathemagically generated link.  So yeah that doesn't count towards de-orphaning.  But really the thing being transcluded is the template, not the page.  Transcluding a page typically means that you dump the contents of one page onto another page, and it's done like this:   So a true transclusion of 54 would be


 * What's meant by (transcluded) in the WhatLinksHere report is that the link is transcluded, not the page.  20:01: Fri 26 Apr 2013

food and beverage categories
diff of the following message on CzechOut's talk page I really want to go through the food and beverages category pages and fix them up. Write pages for the cats, categorise the articles properly, work on some of the articles and write missing articles. However this is a place where the extensive subcats are very confusing. I'm not really sure why they are all there. Pickled onions can be a condiment from the real world, but also a vegetable from the real world. Lasanga is a pasta from the real world, and a meal from the real world. Processed foods overlap with multiple categories, sweets are a subcat of processed foods, dairy products overlap with sweets and drinks, and so on. Every single subcat has articles which are or can be in another subcat and in a lot of cases one cat isn't obviously the dominant. Some of the subcats are particularly problematic; cats where almost every article in the cat can just as easily be in another one. From my reading of policies this seems like a problem of vast over-categorisation and using categories instead of writing articles. A lot of these categories aren't fully supported by the Whoniverse. My instinct is to minimise the number of subcats and delete the ones that aren't helpful to the organising process, but it's a big undertaking and I wanted to touch base with you before I started. Anoted ☎  01:35, April 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you've only been with us for less than a month, and you're proposing a fairly big structural change to the wiki. Prudence probably demands that I ask for a few more details before I sign off on your request. I'd like to talk with you a bit more before you do anything.  I'm not at all sure I know what you mean by "fully supported by the Whoniverse" or how exactly you plan to minimise things  To my mind, sweets — not desserts but sweets — are obviously processed foods, and it's completely natural that some foods might be in multiple food categories.  Milk, for instance, is obviously both a drink and a dairy product.   And, if anything, I think we need to have more categories, not fewer.  Could you maybe provide a few more details — with some sample category branches — so I can get an idea of where your mind is on this?   02:00: Sat 27 Apr 2013

diff of the following reply on CzechOut's talk page

Category change proposal
There isn't a lot of category deletion. It mostly involves renaming categories and combining categories. My overall goal is more precision. A lot of the changes involve setting up fully separate botanical and culinary categories. There are only a few articles that don't have this problem. For example, salt, is clearly categorised in terms of it's culinary usage and it's proper mineral definition. But this is a massive problems for almost every food derived from plants. So most of my changes revolve around creating two clearly separate category trees. This requires a few changes to botany categories, but the food categories really need to be overhauled. Here's an overview of what I was planning to do:

Botany changes
I'd completely separate botany and culinary definitions. So in botany, Fruit would be a subcategory of Flowering plants, and mint would be in Flowering plants. In culinary, Fruit would be a topcat, and mint would be in Herbs and Spices. Mushrooms would be in the botanical category Fungi, but the culinary category Vegetables. Black pepper would be in the botanical category Fruit and in the culinary category Herbs and Spices.
 * This would involve renaming Spices to Herbs and Spices, and combining the categories Nuts and Legumes and Grains and Pasta into Legumes and Grains. This would also involve renaming (and possibly deleting) some botanical categories. This would also involve writing proper category pages for these botany and food categories. It might also involve writing and editing some articles we don't currently have.

Meat
I'd add the category meat. So the category tree would look like this:
 * Food
 * Meat (already has an overarching article) - would include articles like cash cow, chiggocks and sneg
 * real world

Items within meat I'd put in proper zoological categories, and I'd subdivide the Meat category in culinary terms. I do not believe that this requires any changes to zoological categories.

Beverages
Rename Non-Alcoholic beverages to Beverages. Rename Food and Beverages to Food. Make Alcoholic beverages a subcat of Beverages and Beverages a subcategory of food. The category tree would look like:
 * Food
 * Beverages
 * Beverages from the real world
 * Alcoholic beverages
 * Alcoholic beverages from the real world

Other changes
I'd also change the Diary category to Eggs and Dairy. I'd limit the meal category to things that could only be described as meals, like Chop suey, Fish custard, Kedgeree. Scrambled eggs and sandwiches would not be in the meals category. I'd get rid of the Processed foods subcat Sweets, and I'd limit the Processed foods category to things that by their nature were Processed. I'd also write the category page up clarifying what does and doesn't belong there. I'd draw the distinction between Processed foods and Preserved foods. Jam and pickles are preserved, not processed. Let me know what you think. This involves more renaming than deleting. You're right, it's a lot of structural changes. I'm really just trying to make things more coherent and fully separate botany, zoology and food. Anoted ☎  04:01, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Category language
diff of the following message on CzechOut's talk page] Also, I don't fully understand why Category pages do not need to use Britspeak. The guides state this but never explain why, or what would be used instead. Anoted ☎  04:39, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Response to food category proposal
Here's the deal with categories. There's no such thing as renaming. Literally. No. Such. Thing. It's not a power you have. It's not a power an admin has. It's not a power a bureaucrat has. It's not even a power a Wikia Staff member has. It's just not a power offered by the MediaWiki software.

So when you say "rename a category", what you actually mean is to manually depopulate one category, create a new one, manually populate the new one, add to the old one, and then obligate an admin to finish the job for you. And if the admin doesn't like what you've done, then they've got to manually undo your work. Quite obviously, if you move without admin permission, you run the risk of seriously pissing them off.

Easy categorisation changes can only be done with a bot. But even a bot is just doing the manual depopulation, repopulation, creation and deletion schtick. It's just doing it faster than humans can.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but, practically speaking, I would have to be involved in this project, because I'm the only one who has a bot here.

And, although I do deeply and genuinely appreciate the time you've taken to explain your proposal, I ain't, as they say, sold. I'll be re-looking at the categories in due course, but they're not that far off-base to me.

So let me ask you some specific questions to see what I'm missing. For ease of answering, I'll number them.


 * 1) Why is it wrong to have "Nuts and legumes" and "Grains and pasta"? I think that's how most non-foodies would lump things together, cause that's how most grocery stores arrange their aisles.  Perhaps more importantly, that's four words that a person could enter into category module and get a hit.  If we lumped all four things into "Legumes and grains", the two most common words pasta and nut wouldn't return a result.  Remembering that many of our users are barely pubescent, and still others don't use English as their first language, is there a good reason to take away the simpler nouns?
 * 2) I don't understand what you mean when you say you'd "completely separate botany and culinary definitions", because you then go on to immediately talking about putting the same category under both branches of the category tree. That's not separation; that's conjoining.  From a technical standpoint, you are linking botany and food through a shared category.  So where's the separation?
 * 3) Take lime. I don't see how that would go under "flowering plants", because it grows on one of the trees from the real world.  At the very least, some fruit would have to be described as coming from plants, and some from trees, so "flowering plants" is a kind of non-starter.  But the overarching problem is that we don't know, from DWU sources, how certain foods are derived.  We know from our "common knowledge" that a lime comes from a tree, but whether we have a story telling us that is something I'd doubt.  Certainly, we can't possibly know from a DWU source that pepper is a fruit.  What we have from sources is that it's a spice or maybe a condiment of some kind.  See, the basic deal is that T:CAT requires us to put at least one valid category on a page.  And we really don't want to go beyond what the DWU tells us, unless there's no other way.  I accept that in the zoology pages there is sometimes a need to go with common sense, because otherwise we don't even get as far as "mammal" or "reptile".  But I think with food, we always have some kind of idea, if only by what the text tells us was the way something was used, how to categorise it culinarily. Getting into a botanical classification is highly speculative in terms of what is allowed by T:VS, and it's simply unnecessary by T:CAT and T:CAT NAMES.  So my question would be, why is making up a T:NO RW-offending category name just to categorise botanically a good idea?
 * 4) What's the advantage to putting beverages under food, rather than just having "Food and beverages" being the top level cat, and then breaking off food and beverages underneath there?
 * 5) Animals are not necessarily meat. It has to be established as an eaten meat before it goes in the culinary category. For instance, ostrich is eaten for meat in some parts of the world.  But unless we have proof of ostrich being eaten in the DWU, it wouldn't go in category:meats from the real world.  What do you mean by "subdivide the meat category in culinary terms"?  That's pretty vague.
 * 6) I'm a li'l confused what you mean by "category language". Are you talking about the category names themselves, or the category description pages?  If the former aren't using BrEng, please provide a link so I can change them.  If the latter, it's a decision based upon restricting the length of time it takes to run T:SBOT.  To be able to enforce BrEng spelling at all is a fairly major accomplishment. But to do it in all namespaces would simply be an overwhelming burden on the admin staff. So T:SPELL applies only to, as it were, the front of the house. The decision also has to do with being able to write the policy in a simple and straightforward way.  Obviously, we're not going to enforce BrEng spelling in discussion areas or in templates (where colour is actually, functionally, wrong).  It's just easier to say, "BrEng in namespace 0" rather than "BrEng except for templates, discussion areas, file descriptions, MediaWiki pages, property pages, board pages, Game of Rassilon badges and whatever other exceptions we can think of".

18:41: Sat 27 Apr 2013