Template talk:Meals

Cookbook
I've removed the link to Cookbook for two reasons. First, this is a navigational template and should only include links to articles within Wikipedia. Furthermore, the cookbook is irrelevant because it does not talk about meals, only how to make meals. Thus, the cookbook would not be a useful site for readers trying to learn about meals, which is what this template is for. --Schzmo 02:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
Regarding this edit summary: Template:, is too opaque, IMO. Why would it redirect to Template:·? I don't know. Better to use the latter to make the intent more clear. As for the "dud" caption, it was there for a reason: to provide a modicum of separation between the photo and the first header bar. Powers T 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're wondering...
It was rendering as a long list of bulleted items. I don't know why. Anyway, I reverted to an old version. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:BIAS
There is a problem with bias in this template. Unintended, I'm sure, but that's really the worst kind. The template describes meals in a very western way, specifically in a very French way (Asian cuisines, for example, don't really have concepts like 'amuse bouche' and 'entremet,' which is basically straight out of Escoffier).

How would we like to address this? — The Potato Hose 20:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Common/uncommon meals classification?
Is it really necessary to classify the meals listed in the template as either ‘common’or ‘uncommon’? Besides no strong basis I am aware of existing for the classification of each meal (are elevenses or snacks really less common than brunch?), I don't think that separating three list items really makes the template any easier to navigate than it would be with just nine items listed under ‘meals’. 182.239.172.13 (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)