Template talk:Non-GMO

scope

I am wondering about this template. What is its scope meant to be? If it is limited to food, it should perhaps be non-genetically modified food or something. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question. Originally I was thinking about food. Perhaps its better to be all inclusive, but for some there are two pages one about food and another on horticulture aspects of non-gmo. We can include both food and horticulture. Grouping the categories allows that. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 21:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Any suggestions? - Sidelight12 ^Talk 21:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

so I am clear, would you please tell what you mean by "horticulture"? People use that term in various ways. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The full range of horticulture pertaining to non-gmo, including: industrial farming, growing practices, personal gardening. I'll see two articles, really of the same subject, one has horticulture in the label, the other farming, but they both use the same principles by being non-gmo (in one case organic). Actually, the growing practice is what's important, and it covers personal and commercial growing. Is there something I could be missing? Regulating bodies (not all) may also be of importance. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 21:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

so by "horticulture" you mean growing plants, broadly speaking? what about animal husbandry? Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely forgot about that. We should include animals too. There are also pages about genetically modified pets, and these are contained under their own gmo template. Anything and everything that is specifically about non-genetically modified (as intent, or otherwise) belongs here: along those lines, the template can be inclusive and well organized without being full of bloat. The gmo template already gets the focus on what's specifically intended as (or as an effect) of gmo.

Horticulture as in propagating, growing, maintaining, practices; and distributing, regulations, etc. Now Agriculture. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 22:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, so agriculture, broadly. Now, [[Wikipedia:Categorization] says that categories are meant "to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." What article do you think that fits into? I can think of one in WP, which is The Non-GMO Project. For Organic Food and Organic farming, no genetic engineering is a quality in some standards, but not all. And some people who are otherwise very supportive of organic and are opposed to many of the bad practices of conventional ag, like Mark Lynas, Pamela Ronald, and Marion Nestle, see no intrinsic reason why GM should be excluded from organic standards. In my view, "no GMO" is not essential to the definition of "organic". Don't know what your thoughts on that are. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with using categories to keep pages organized. It looks like templates and articles have different types of categories. Are you suggesting that the template link to a better representing article from the title? There's also Genetically modified food controversies. Or what were you suggesting when you mentioned categories?

For organic, its better to go on a per standard basis inclusion based on being non-gmo, like "USDA organic" etc. no matter if the word gets repetitive, its for clarity. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 05:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I cited the categorization guideline so that our discussion would be based on PAG, that's all. The key part of that, is that the article to which the category is applied, needs to cover "topics that are defined by those characteristics." SO ... I guess to ask a bit more about what about agriculture you want to categorize with this new category. I should have held my comments about applying it, until I understood what you intend the essence of the category, "non-GMO". Is this meant to apply to pages where the activities of anti-GMO activists are discussed? Is it meant to serve as a guide for people seeking to avoid GM food? What does it signify? I think it would be useful to add these two things - the definition of the category and the scope, to the template. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's mostly for those seeking to avoid GM food, gardening, and practices. More precisely, in functional terms, a navbar to link together which practices are non-gmo. Originally, it was to state that heirloom (a gardening term), and the few organics were non-gmo. It's to clear up understanding, for anyone to find the right articles on which other articles are included as being non-gmo foods/practices, so there's easier navigation and not a need for over-repetition (beyond the basic premises) between articles. There's less focus on activists, but that can always get a subcategory. Making it all things non-gmo isn't a problem either, templates can get complex and remain organized.

This template is completely different than the gmo template, but one template can always be embedded under another. While this is something to consider; it's not functional to do so, and it could draw hostility to this template. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)