There was some discussion previously about having the kosher status of establishments included in the diet feature, without a clear decision.
To record kosher status, two pieces of information are needed. The first is whether the establishment serves meat, dairy, neither ("pareve"), or both separately (meat and milk cannot be mixed in kosher observance).
So I would suggest the options:
diet:kosher=yes diet:kosher=meat diet:kosher=dairy diet:kosher=pareve diet:kosher=meat_dairy
Also, the certifying organization is an important piece of information, since in most cases the kosher status of a location will be determined by the patron based on his/her recognition of the certifying authority. (kosher observance can be complicated, with different Jewish denominations observing different requirements.)
Probably the best way to accomplish this (based on User:Valhalla's suggestion), is as follows:
As noted there, this format could be useful for other types of certification as well. --Eliyak 17:52, 8 September 2011 (BST)
more vegetarian dialect?
In Taiwan, most buddist vegetarian accept dairy but avoid fetid vegetables, alcohol. Jain vegetarian avoid mushroom.
many we need more *_free like alcohol_free, fetid_free, mushroom_free?
- IMO we should add these only if someone from these groups actually asks for it. They will probably know better what they are interested in. For example, whether places that do not serve anything non-alcoholic are really a practical concern. Your suggestions also have the problem that they tell me whether I can get meals without mushrooms and vegetarian meals, but not whether I can get vegetarian meals without mushrooms. --Tordanik 13:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed that excerpt because, greengrocers are places that sell primarially vegetables and fruits. It's not common to find meat and fish in greengrocers: "Greengrocers that sell lettuce and tomatoes also need to make an effort to offer, for example, a range of explicit vegetarian alternatives to meat or a good selection of fish without animal by-products to deserver vegetarian=yes or pescetarian=yes."
Non food items
"Vegan" redirects here, yet there are a lot of vegan things that are not food e.g. clothes, soaps.
There are shops that advertise as being Vegan, and there should be a tag for it. I suggest that "vegan=yes" can be used for non-food shops.
Full options : add a "friendly" value
I've just notice the "Note on full options" below the table. It pretty much says that if a place does provide dishes for a specific diet, even several dishes, it shouldn't be marked as doing so. How come ?!
The criterion for "yes" is that the place makes "explicit efforts". So if a place doesn't choose to market itself to a specific segment, but does provide the dietary option, it's as good as if they weren't providing anything.
This is confusing and tricky. "Yes" should mean "yes, this diet is available here". If we want to indicate that a place makes efforts, we should add a "friendly" value. "Friendly" means "provides an explicit effort", "yes" doesn't. As for now, we're unable to tag properly some places.
For instance, many indians and lebanese restaurants provide a vegetarian option. But they're not making any effort : it's just the way the indian and lebanese cuisine are. So how should we tag them with diet:vegetarian ? It can't be "only", or "no", as they do provide the option. But it can't be "yes", as "yes" presently means "makes an explicit effort".
I'm almost certain that many people didn't notice the "Note on full options", so many error must have already been made. Some people must be using the tag according to the note, some other according to the table, where the explicit effort notion isn't mentioned.
We really need a new "friendly" value, because the current "yes-that-means-friendly" doesn't help.
- It's true that the "explicit effort" remark could be worded better, but I still disagree on your interpretation of it. To me, it seems to be there in order to set a reasonable minimum standard. There are restaurants that don't have any actual vegetarian meals, but will offer a side salad or something like that instead. The note makes it clear that those should not be counted as "yes", because a bland and barely nutritious salad is hardly a replacement for a decent selection of full meals. Now you are right that, taken literally, this would also cover the case where no efforts are necessary in the first place because the options were there anyway. As I said, though, that doesn't seem to be the intention.
- As for the "friendly" value, that could certainly be an option. It could, for example, cover those restaurants that offer a large number of or even mostly meals following a particular diet, and make them easy to find in the menu. There would have to be a good definition, though.
- --Tordanik 14:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is mostly a wording problem. I do agree that place should meet a minimum standard, but I think the "explicit effort" and "several meals" adds confusion (at least, it confused me I guess). I'm not saying that restaurant serving a side salad should be tagged "yes" at all. Instead, I'm trying to draw a line between places where you can follow your diet properly (as opposed to places serving side-salad precisely), and places where you can follow your diet easily. Could this way to describe tags work better ?
- only provides this dietary option
- although not limited to this dietary option, provides significant range of choices for it. The option may be specifically labelled or advertised.
- provides at least a proper choice for this dietary option, constantly available (i.e full meal in a restaurant, specific section in shop)
- doesn't provide the dietary option at all, or not reliably (i.e side-orders or light snack only in a pub, temporary products in a shop)
- Ikanot (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. The current description is not that clear and it seems legit to make difference between a restaurant which offer various meals/dishes of a specific diet and a restaurant which only offer one meal (or just modified an existing meal) of a specific diet.
- kyane (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I recommend that you just go ahead and start mapping the diet:sugar_free tag. I wouldn't expect it to be controversial. The data has 4 instances of it already. --Danstowell (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the recommendation to start mapping it. But as I'm not very familiar with the concept, let me ask: Is there any internationally established definition what "sugar free" means? --Tordanik 14:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
add 'limited' value
In my opinion we should add a 'limited' value where there is only a limited choice for a particular diet, but not a full/proper choice as =yes implies. This would mean that =no can just be for places where there are no options at all.
Currently the wiki suggests using 'no' if there are only a few small options available and for when there's nothing available at all for a particular diet.
With a limited value, the no value can be used for when there is nothing available at all and limited when there is maybe just one or two options.
eg diet:vegetarian at a fish and chip shop:
- =limited when only chips are available
- =no when the chips are fried in beef dripping and has absolutely nothing veggie at all - there are a few of these in N Yorks
Hi - I strongly support this idea of adding a "limited" value. It's important to distinguish between, for example, "vegetarians would starve here" (value 'no') and "vegetarians would not starve but wouldn't prefer here" (value 'limited'). Especially important in rural settings and other places where there's not much choice. I'll add a note to the page that this is a suggestion, which I hope will lead to some more discussion here. --Danstowell (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)