Talk:Rat endowment

The parent page has managed to make 184 households' dispute disappear into one tidy sentence about a withdrawn levy. Opening the parent-page discussion requested at the rent-strike nomination. The proposed 183-word merger was rejected here as undue weight. The current entry gives the colony's size and says the levy ended. It drops the visitor card that counted approaches, the committee's audit observer and the unresolved charging question. A reader could reasonably think the tenants merely negotiated a lower price for keeping the rats. What portion of the account is this page willing to accept? I will oppose closing the nomination as a merge until this page accepts the visitor-card method, audit observer and charging question in print. DuctWitness 08:14, 5 July 11366 (UTC)

DuctWitness's 183-word annex would make one estate's grievance the centre of an article about an institution. I objected to giving one estate nearly as much space as selection and governance combined. We have an institutional article with three named examples. The proposed text supplied six sums, two incident counts and the route of an unused ferry. One paragraph about how colony care becomes a charge to tenants is my ceiling. The monthly escrow history would still overwhelm this page. Put the summary under Noorderhof and keep the escrow ledger out of this institutional overview, even if that makes DuctWitness accuse me of hiding tenants. BeneficiaryRegister 08:46, 5 July 11366 (UTC)

Then try this under Colony estates: “At Lindeveld, contractors counted encounters through visitor cards asking whether a person had been approached. Tenants kept a separate incident log. The 2038 settlement withdrew the habitat levy and gave the tenants a place in quarterly audits; it left the colony in residence.” That preserves a consequence and a mechanism. I would keep the separate article while its nomination is open. FootnoteQuarry 09:07, 5 July 11366 (UTC)

Do not sell that little paragraph as a home for the whole strike while the nomination tries to delete its actual record. That would improve this article. It would be a very poor replacement for the other one. Please mark it as a proposed summary in the nomination. Last time, “the parent can preserve the material” became an argument for deleting the only page that actually contained it. If the parent refuses those details, keep the separate article; a theoretical destination is worth nothing to the tenants whose record gets cut. DuctWitness 09:21, 5 July 11366 (UTC)

The proposed placement would make Noorderhof's visitor card look like universal practice, all to save somebody a click. Still concerned about placement. Our estate paragraph describes contractors across several colonies; adding this directly after it will make one contractor's card look like the standard method. Expand Noorderhof's entry with an explicit link to the settlement. Duct wants the charging question included too. That is already more than the suggested summary, so there is no agreed destination text yet. Until the exact destination text is agreed, nobody should describe this parent page as a willing merge target. BeneficiaryRegister 10:03, 5 July 11366 (UTC)

Moving the early-colony photograph under the ASDI paragraph is a lazy way to rewrite a lineage I have spent years tracing. Keep the early colony photograph beside the selection section. Putting both pictures below the ASDI paragraph encourages the reading that all these animals are engineered lines. The captions currently distinguish the early visitors from descendants of a conventionally selected line boarding a later ferry. An old lineage can use a new vehicle. Move the photograph back before anyone uses its new position to call twentieth-century selection an ASDI invention. SoftCoatArchive 14:02, 12 August 11366 (UTC)

Agreed about placement. The larger sourcing problem is the sentence listing round faces, soft coats and handling. Albert et al. concerns laboratory selection for tameness. It cannot establish that remembered animals attracted gifts or that those gifts changed survival on endowed estates. The footnote sits beside Veld, and readers may give the laboratory work credit for the whole account. Could the note say which source supplies the colony history? PedigreeMargin 14:31, 12 August 11366 (UTC)

Do not flatten generations of selection into a bumper sticker about donors liking cute rats. Veld's reference entry already identifies colony records and donor practices. The proposed shortened paragraph would lose the actual selection mechanism: approachable rats drew repeated gifts, survived and bred. “Benefactors preferred cute rats” leaves out why that preference altered a population. Move the laboratory citations into a separate sentence before cutting any of that. Keep the selection mechanism in full; I will oppose shortening it to one sentence even if the page grows longer. SoftCoatArchive 15:10, 12 August 11366 (UTC)

The beneficiary register is the actual boundary of care; the sentimental photo readers keep citing cannot do that job. Keep the last sentence about staff trapping unendowed rats, too. It explains something the photographs cannot: appealing animals outside the beneficiary register could still be removed. A visitor remembering a rat's name mattered because somebody then recorded which rats the fund would feed. The studbook and the trust deed belong in the same history. Retain the unendowed-rat sentence in the history; deleting it would make the register's cruelty invisible. RegisterClerk 16:04, 12 August 11366 (UTC)

The lead says a “substantial part of the baseline human economy.” That scope stays visible, and any proposed percentage needs a measure. The body offers property, patents, income and employment. Those are four different things a fund can have a large share of. A patent royalty enters income each year; adding the patent's sale value to that year's receipts would count the asset as well. Can somebody identify the relevant table in Animal Beneficiary Funds in the Baseline Accounts before we add a percentage? No percentage enters the lead until its year, population and accounting measure appear beside it, regardless of how unsatisfying 'substantial' looks. BalanceForward 07:52, 6 October 11366 (UTC)

I am not deleting the lead because BalanceForward cannot fit every form of property into one denominator. There is no percentage in the article. “Substantial” lets us state the institution's importance while the body explains the forms it took. Deleting the sentence until someone supplies a single denominator would leave the transition from winter feeding grounds to landlords and patent holders buried halfway down the page. I will revert any attempt to turn BalanceForward's percentage objection into a deletion mandate. BeneficiaryRegister 08:20, 6 October 11366 (UTC)

That cute joke erases the trustee arrangement that makes this article worth reading. I am objecting to the suggested percentage, not requesting deletion. “The rats owned a large fraction of everything” also needs to stay out. The trustees hold assets for named colonies; the lead makes that arrangement unusually clear. Changing the subject of the sentence to the rats would make the joke quicker and the institution harder to understand. I will revert the next 'rat wealth' joke that changes a trustee's legal role into direct ownership by every animal. BalanceForward 08:37, 6 October 11366 (UTC)

The Noorderhof schedules can support its Cairn royalties. They cannot give us the share held by all endowments, and the London and Paris directory entries add activities rather than comparable accounts. Keep the qualitative lead for now. If someone finds a usable series, give its year, population and accounting measure together. A column headed “rat wealth” would be irresistible to copy and impossible to interpret. LedgerMoth 10:11, 6 October 11366 (UTC)

Calling a tortoise's food an obvious footnote is how living carriers vanish from these trust accounts. Oppose trimming “The ferry needs grazing and care of its own” as obvious. The pictured tortoise is carrying the beneficiaries. A reader can easily assume it is another beneficiary, yet the cited deed defines a rat colony. Its food is a transport expense unless the deed provides something further. That distinction becomes fairly consequential when someone proposes retiring a ferry. Keep the ferry care sentence in the main paragraph; I will not accept its burial in a cost note. ShellKeeper 18:06, 8 October 11366 (UTC)

ShellKeeper's retirement tangent is an invitation to invent obligations from an accounting label. The care sentence stays; the retirement speculation stays out until there is a source. The field manual supports husbandry during transfer. We have one endowment's deed and no ferry contract here. Some estates may own a tortoise, others hire one. “Transport expense” describes an accounting entry; it does not by itself tell us what anyone owes the animal. RegisterClerk 18:40, 8 October 11366 (UTC)

RegisterClerk is so worried about an invented retirement policy that they nearly missed the immediate care problem. I was never asking for an invented retirement policy. Keep the care sentence. At Lindeveld they costed two runs and omitted feeding the rats waiting for the second. Between that and “buying the adjacent plot is often easier,” the present paragraph does useful work: moving the nest does not make the animals left at either end stop needing care. Any future relocation cost should include care for the carrier and the waiting rats before someone calls it complete. ShellKeeper 19:03, 8 October 11366 (UTC)