Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Archive 28

Do these lamb dishes merit articles?
Mallow with lamb (which is also Lebanese) and Fennel with lamb. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Useful publications for bibliographies/references
Many of these publications are linked in relevant articles, but many aren't; it seems like lots of them could be useful as further reading for basic food subjects. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

May I ask your attention?
Hello!

I'd like to ask project experts to take a look at the recently created Pogacha article, which is in fact a combination of well-established articles of Pogácsa and Pogača, under a new title. I personally think merging of the two articles was not only an arbitrary move (there was no merge talks or something), but also a completely wrong one, since the dishes in the article – although there are a lot of similarities – are not the same. This is why they all had separate articles. The title of the new article is questionable as well, since I got no more than 40,000 Google hits on "pogacha", while over 400,000 on "pogača" and over 1.5 million on "pogácsa". Same goes for Gbooks hits. I was about to revert this copy-paste action and restore the "pogácsa" and "pogača" articles, however, this would leave the new "pogacha" article total empty. In this case, "pogacha" probably could be redirected to "pogácsa"? Any idea? Thehoboclown (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

Adding categories to Cheese articles
Hi, is adding the category to Fivemiletown Creamery a bad thing and a no-no? Opinions appreciated. -- HighKing ++ 12:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would like another editor's opinion on this. The objection stems from the article being about a creamery (diary production company) and the category saying "Northern Irish cheeses", with the reason being that since the article refers to a company, it shouldn't have a category related to cheese.  There doesn't appear to be anything in policy or guidelines that I can find that point to one position or another.  Thanks.  -- -- HighKing ++ 18:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fry Jacks
In early December Carr76 created articles Fry Jacks and Fry jack about a dish in Belizian cuisine. The two articles are duplicates but not identical. They were both created as a copy/paste from content now at user:Carr76/sandbox 2 but have been edited independently since. I've put merge tags on them but I thought I'd give you a heads up. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By now Fry Jacks is redirected to Fry jack, so that problem is solved. But the article is very poor and mainly a howto, with a close paraphrasing problem with the source given and a notability problem. The Banner talk 03:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have copy edited Fry jack to address some of your concerns. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Walking taco
Input sought on this relatively new article. Existing articles are frito pie and tostilocos. A possible merge is proposed on the talk page. Input welcome. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration for Draft:Honest Kids
Hi! I was wondering if anyone would be interested in collaborating for an article of Honest Kids, which is a juice brand. Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose merge from Meat market to Butcher
I have proposed that Meat market be merged to Butcher. Discussion is at Talk:Meat market. Cnilep (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Lahmajoon
You are invited to participate in the discussion on the name -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia, excited to help
Hi all, I am excited to be taking a class at my university dedicated to editing and learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia. We were assigned to choose and contribute to a WikiProject, and I chose this one! Hopefully I'll be able to contribute while following all of the Wikipedia guidelines, but guidance is extremely WELCOME! I will review the "Open Tasks" and "Article To Do Lists," but if there's anything in particular you all suggest I start on first, let me know! Bailey614 (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! We're glad to have you here. I don't have any particular articles in mind for you to start with, but if I do, I'll get back to you. Bananasoldier (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you only interested in food items generically, or brands as well? Bananasoldier (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Bailey614: This project also covers food brands, companies, manufacturers, producers, processors, distributors, restaurants, etc. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Bailey614, I don't know what your particular area of interest is, but Guinea-Bissauan cuisine is a red-link, there are several dishes in the Yemeni cuisine article that are redlinks, pepperpot soup (a AmerIndian/ Jamaican cuisine dish) is a redlink, and the Bengali cuisine dish Chachchari is a redlink. Good luck. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Bailey614: List of Michelin starred restaurants is in need of improvements, per the template messages atop. I have begun working on it, and assistance is appreciated, if you're interested in this topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please Define
What does the J.T.S. stand for on the J.T.S. Brown label???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.73.247 (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears the J in J.T.S. stands for John. Here are some pics of the family members. John Thompson Street Brown.  Maybe!  A pic of some relatives allegedly at Abraham Lincoln's National Birthplace. Gzuufy (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

List of seafood restaurants
I have recommended we move this topic to seafood restaurant as teh list is unworkable and we don't have an article as yet on the basic topic (so starting from the ground up....) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. How is the list "unworkable"? It is quite expandable, in which entries can have descriptions easily added to them. These things take time to perform. Also, I've boldly created the new stub article: Seafood restaurant. NorthAmerica1000 04:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Upon consideration, nevermind:
 * ✅ Information from List of seafood restaurants has been merged into Seafood restaurant, and a redirect to the latter has been created. NorthAmerica1000 15:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

There is constant vandalism on "Marble cheese" article
There is constant on going vandalism happening. It started when twitch.tv streamer did a bad joke regarding the subject and now his viewers and flooding the article.

Considering the reputation of the streamer and hes fans, the article will be under constant bombardment for days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble_cheese

I am just putting this up here since reverting will be useless until the joke dies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gehe fin (talk • contribs) 00:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sweets, candies, and stuff like that
I've finally gotten a copy of Richardson's Sweets: A History of Candy (ISBN 1-58234-229-6). It's great source about candy/sweets/stuff that's bad for your teeth, and I'd like to talk to interested people (you) about how to organize the related articles. Here's the deal:


 * 1) The biggest category is called confectionery, which is baker's confections (all types of sweet pastries and cakes) plus sugar confections (all types of sweets/candies).  The difference between a "pastry" and a "sweet" is partly cultural, because it's about whether you serve it as part of a meal (e.g., on a plate, with a fork, during a meal course called dessert) versus just eating it out of hand whenever you feel like it.  (Also, ice cream is a confection, but that's partly due to tax laws and partly because a lot of it was sold in sweets/candy shops back in the day.)
 * 2) The next biggest category is called sweets if you're British and candy if you're American, and it includes chocolate, chewing gum, candy bars, hard candies, breath mints, sugar-coated nuts, sugarplums dancing in your head, and just about anything else along those lines.  Depending on century and culture, it can even include fruit jam, nuts in syrup, and even some things that Western people might call pastry because they were baked.
 * 3) The end category is sugar candy (or just candy if you're British), which is candy that is practically 100% sugar, like lollipops, rock candy, boiled sweets, etc.  Importantly from the Western perspective, there is no chewing gum and no chocolate in this category.

So at the moment, we have:


 * an underloved article at Confectionery that claims to talk about Category #2 (under ==Examples==), but focuses on #3 in that section, and pretty much ignores #1 (which ought to be the main focus) throughout the whole article. It even mis-identifies the List of candies as being a list about the "variety of confectionery", even though that list does not (and should not) discuss bakers' confections.
 * an article at Candy that defines itself (in the first sentence) as being about #3, but actually covers #2.
 * an article at Hard candy that appears to be the main article on sugar candy/hard candy/boiled sweets/whatever you want to call that kind, and it's a stub.

Candy making is a redlink. Candyman is a WP:DAB page that doesn't link to anything about the career of making or selling candy; candy maker is a redirect to Confectionery, which doesn't mention it. Confectionery store is a stub that claims to be about sellers of candy (category #2) rather than confections in general (#1), and should probably be moved to either sweet shop or candy store (both redirect there), or re-written to include bakeries.

So what I'm proposing is this:


 * You tell me what I've missed.
 * We expand Confectionery to give WP:DUE weight to bakers' confections.
 * We re-target Candy to cover category #2 (and massively expand it).
 * We expand Hard candy to cover category #3, with a proper summary and Main link in Candy.
 * We create an article on candy making, including information about the occupational aspects.
 * Candy maker gets repointed to candy making, and linked on the dab page for candyman.
 * Confectionery store gets moved to a more specific name.

I'm in no rush, but I realize that this is a lot of changes to a bunch of articles, so I wanted to get your views before I did anything.

By the way, if you're interested in globalizing Wikipedia, Richardson's book has a long chapter at the end about sweets in different regions, including relative popularity, favorite flavors and products, and more. It would make for an excellent paragraph in dozens of our "cuisine of ____" articles. The limited preview at Google Books or at Amazon.com is probably enough for anyone who only wants information on one country/region and doesn't want to buy the book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi User:WhatamIdoing: Thanks for the ideas. I have performed the following:
 * New stub article Candy making created ✅
 * Added link to the Candyman disambiguation page ✅
 * Redirected Candy maker to the Candy making article. ✅
 * Added some links to related articles linking to the Candy making article
 * – NorthAmerica1000 20:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made a couple of big changes to Confectionery. Let me know what you think.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing: Nice improvements to the Confectionery article! NorthAmerica1000 04:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like it. My latest effort was to create Starch mogul, because it's one of the more interesting machines that I ran across in reading.
 * Thanks for fixing the link to the chocolate enrober. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with new article
Howdy. I've just created an article for chef Michael Psilakis but I'm struggling to find industry sources that might help to establish (independently) when he opened and closed certain restaurants. There's info in his various self-published bios but I'd prefer to use 3rd party sources if possible. If anyone can point me in the right direction I'd be grateful. I'm also planning on creating an article for NZ chef Kayne Raymond so anyone who wants to help out with that too... Stalwart 111  00:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Foodie.fm
Dear food experts: Here's an abandoned Afc submission that appears to have quite a few references. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept and improved, or deleted as a stale draft? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Published ✅ →  See Foodie.fm. NorthAmerica1000 01:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks; that's great! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Bread roll
Really not very good. The 'Types' section starts "There are many names for bread rolls, especially in local dialects of British English." I really don't think we want a list of names of rolls in this article. The lead doesn't even suggest Americans might eat rolls. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Dougweller: At the very least, I think the blue-linked entries should stay in the list. I could spend some time finding sources and verifying additional content in the list, but I hesitate to immediately do so because it would be counterproductive in the event the content were to be removed later anyway. NorthAmerica1000 17:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They seem to be types not just names, so they are fine, except where there is something like "Buttery – a flat savoury roll from Aberdeen." The actual article says "A buttery, also known as a roll, rowie, rollie, Aberdeen roll or Cookie is a savoury Scottish bread roll" although it then says common in NE Scotland. It started in Aberdeen probably but I've seen them in Edinburgh everytime I've been there, and coincidentally dated 3 days ago says Asda (Walmart) will be carrying them nationwide. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability of food: are recipes enough?
I couldn't find anything about Notability (food), nor any policy about recipes (please direct me to such if I missed them). The question I have concerns this: is the existence of several recipes enough to confer notability on a given subject? I thought recipes were not seen as reliable sources, so they couldn't be used to argue for GNG "coverage"? As in, is the argument "there are many recipes for X on the Internet hence the subject is notable" valid or not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it depend on the website? If the site is that of a notable chef eg Heston Blumenthal or organisation eg BBC, then the recipe is notable. If it's from a non-notable person eg from Joe Public on a blog such as Mumsnet, then probably not and I don't think the "volume" of Joe Public postings changes that. A reliable source would need to discuss those Joe Public postings before they could be used. There's probably a sort of cross-over on whether the source is reliable or not in all this. DeCausa (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a recipe alone indicates notability. The purpose of notability is to make sure that it's possible to write an encyclopedia article on the subject.  A recipe can't meet that need.  You'd end up with "articles" that said things like "Cumin chicken is a poultry dish in which chicken is rubbed with powdered cumin and baked at 375 °F until it's cooked through".  That's not an encyclopedia article.  You can't write an encyclopedia from a recipe alone.
 * On the other hand, if you have sources that write about the dish (the inventor, first creation, marketing, publication, etc.), in addition to the actual recipe, then that might be a very valuable indication of notability. For example, Chocolate chip cookies are a notable food, but the notability comes from the fact that hundreds of sources have written about Ruth Graves Wakefield's creation, not because the recipe itself is widely available.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * is right. I'll also add that some recipes and cookbooks include introductory text that gives background and history of the dish. When this content appears to be well researched (and not just based on the author's own assumptions or anecdotes), I'd argue it crosses the threshold of reliability. Ibadibam (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of WhatamIdoing is right. I kind of assumed that what the OP meant was "the dish" rather than literally just the recipe for the dish. But maybe I assumed too much. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the dish's originator matters less than whether the dish is culturally pervasive or enduring. Plenty of celebrity chefs come up with new recipes all the time; how many of them actually have enough of a story to warrant a Wikipedia article? Ibadibam (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, risking having WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS thrown at me, have you seen the huge aray of "dishes" we have as articles? I suspect quite a small proportion would survive a culturally pervasive/enduring test. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suspect you're right. What to do? Ibadibam (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think GNG should be our guide - if a dish has been written about in multiple published recipe books, then that should be sufficient to keep - and remember the book need not be written in English. This would allow a great number of dishes while excluding inventions that only show up in one cook book or recipe website.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with using GNG too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, but GNG stipulates that coverage address the topic "directly and in detail". A recipe in itself is not significant coverage – it doesn't tell us anything about the dish other than its ingredients and preparation. But if we want to know where it comes from, who eats it, what it means to the culture where it originated – you know, the stuff that would go in an encyclopedia article – we need more. Ibadibam (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * well, not really - first elaboration of a recipe which may take 2-3 pages is a significant amount of details, additionally most recipe books I've seen give at least some details about the history/culture/traditions around a dish. I also think IAR comes in here - even if I'm not able to find good sources around a dish that is widely eaten, I think the dish should remain, as it's probably more a question of paper sources than lack of notability. In other words, if you were to ask a grandmother of country X does she know about dish Y, if she does it's a pretty good bet we should have it here. But I do agree if we have a recipe of dubious heritage and have no details beyond the ingredients that is thin meal for a WP article. Do we have such instances to discuss as examples?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I know we have quite a few recipes like the cumin chicken example, at least I think they are. Eg Fennel with lamb and Blessed thistle with lamb and Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, those look like significant dishes in their respective cuisines. Would you also have us delete Peking Duck, General Tso's chicken, and salted cod? Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the basic guideline that has been used by WP:Food - recipes, unto themselves, do not establish notability. There are simply too many out there, and not all are from reliable sources. Additionally, most cookbooks are not held to the same editorial standards as more authoritative books such as history books, biographies or newspapers. While there sometimes is a history of a recipe included in cookbooks, a lot of times they are homilies, myth or folk history that have not been verified or deeply researched.


 * Regarding more famous cultural dishes, that is problematic because many regional recipes have differing ingredient lists and ratios that are based upon familial or local traditions. Several different communities may serve the same dish, but the ingredients may differ from town to town - one community may make the dish with lamb, while another may use goat for example. And the same dish may also have ethnic or religious variations that are found in the same region. Look at the Caucasus regions for example, Muslims may prepare a traditional dish one way to be halal, Jews another way to conform to kosher laws, while Christians would prepare it yet another way because they do not have the same dietary restrictions as the other two groups.


 * Eventually you run into problems regarding certain loaded terms as well. Authentic, traditional, classic and other adjectives used to describe recipes will offend people for the reason I have stated. All you have to do is look at the edit wars over Korean, Macedonian and Cypriot cuisines to see what I mean regarding the issues of traditional dishes, recipes and other topics.


 * There are obviously exceptions to this guideline, especially if the recipe itself is famous. Good examples are Julia Child's beef bourguignon from her book Mastering the Art of French Cooking, the Waldorf-Astoria's Waldorf Salad, or the Omni Parker House's Parker House roll are all good examples of famous dishes that have a specific recipe. I would also say books by chefs such as Alton Brown, who is know for his research into the subject of food, would be more allowable. So the general rule of thumb regarding recipes is that they only establish verifiability, not notability. Additionally, you will need to look at the source of the recipe.


 * Here are some links:
 * Our source list - This was written by former editor Chef Tanner. Chef Tanner is certified chef who taught at a culinary school in New York state and is now one of the chief development chefs at Campbell's Foods.
 * Our project guidelines - A long, incomplete list.
 * Original, authentic, and traditional - An essay on the problems of terms.
 * I hope this helps. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How would we find out whether a grandmother from country X would know about dish Y? And how would we know whether a recipe itself is famous? I can only imagine we'd learn that from reliable sources that discuss the dish itself, in which case we've satisfied GNG and don't need to use the recipe as a source in the first place. Ibadibam (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)