Talk:English cuisine: Difference between revisions
→On pictures of coronation chicken: congrats for new photo; sign previous comment that I forgot to sign |
BrigadierG (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
:::::Hooray! ;-) [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 22:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
:::::Hooray! ;-) [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 22:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::Congrats, BrigadierG, you did it. Your new Coronation chicken photo looks infinitely better than the ''Pollo Coronación'' version. Personally, I'm not crazy about the viscous yellow sauce (nature of the dish I guess). So how did it taste? That's what really counts. [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 02:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC) |
::::::Congrats, BrigadierG, you did it. Your new Coronation chicken photo looks infinitely better than the ''Pollo Coronación'' version. Personally, I'm not crazy about the viscous yellow sauce (nature of the dish I guess). So how did it taste? That's what really counts. [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 02:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::::It's among my favourite sandwich fillings (alongside prawn mayo and ham + chutney) and it was bloody lovely as far as I'm concerned. <span style="color:#ef5224">[[User:BrigadierG|BrigadierG]]</span> ([[User talk:BrigadierG|talk]]) 08:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:51, 3 July 2024
English cuisine has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 29, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
POV removal of large amount of reliably-cited content
An editor has seen fit to remove an exceptionally large amount of reliably-cited content, apparently on the grounds that it seemed to them "negative".
Firstly, Wikipedia covers topics neutrally, per WP:NPOV, covering all attitudes whether those are in favour or against any particular position. This article takes no side, has been formally reviewed on criteria which explicitly include neutrality, and is Reliably Cited to scholarly and other sources.
Secondly, it is unacceptable for editors to remove content that they personally consider "negative". Editors always have a wide range of opinions, and they are required when working on Wikipedia to put their own views aside and to report on the facts neutrally.
I have therefore restored the article to its last clean state. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, the article should staty in this state until the discussion is completed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I added back my two changes - the Yorkshire Pudding quote from a chef needs a balance. Smallworldsplayer 2 (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)- That's fine; the exact claim and citation were actually commented out in the same paragraph, i.e. it had been considered for inclusion. No worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps we could update some of the images in the English dishes gallery, using pictures @CulinaryBrit's added in his edit here? Smallworldsplayer 2 (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)- Thanks for discussing. It's not impossible, but you will note that each of the current images is discussed by scholars and provided with known dates, suitably cited to reliable sources. Further, the images have been chosen to illustrate the diversity of both dishes and ingredients, and the range of dates at which these were introduced. The gallery is thus both well-informed and large enough (galleries must not be indiscriminate), so it is not obvious why we'd need either to replace any of the existing images, or to add more. In either case, we would require reliable sources. Further, to replace an image, we'd need a convincing set of arguments, here, why the new image served readers better than the old one; and to add an image, we'd need arguments both of the necessity for the additional image, as stated by scholars in the article's text, and for why the gallery would not be getting over-large (i.e. worse, and contrary to policy) through the addition. The default position is that the current gallery is properly constructed and sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Maybe it's something we could work on slowly? I do think @CulinaryBrit introduced some nicer, more up to date images in the gallery. I do understand, however, we must keep the sources there and do this carefully. It wouldn't even hurt for some dishes to be replaced and new sources added with it. Smallworldsplayer 2 (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)- Change is always possible. The idea is that the images directly support the cited text in the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for discussing. It's not impossible, but you will note that each of the current images is discussed by scholars and provided with known dates, suitably cited to reliable sources. Further, the images have been chosen to illustrate the diversity of both dishes and ingredients, and the range of dates at which these were introduced. The gallery is thus both well-informed and large enough (galleries must not be indiscriminate), so it is not obvious why we'd need either to replace any of the existing images, or to add more. In either case, we would require reliable sources. Further, to replace an image, we'd need a convincing set of arguments, here, why the new image served readers better than the old one; and to add an image, we'd need arguments both of the necessity for the additional image, as stated by scholars in the article's text, and for why the gallery would not be getting over-large (i.e. worse, and contrary to policy) through the addition. The default position is that the current gallery is properly constructed and sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's fine; the exact claim and citation were actually commented out in the same paragraph, i.e. it had been considered for inclusion. No worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
English wine missing?
Welsh wine is mentioned on Welsh cuisine, but no mention of English wine here? It's the biggest market of wine in the UK and England produces more wine than the rest of the UK. Should be noted and given some attention. 2A02:C7C:74AD:AF00:1D74:3475:623A:4662 (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Not sure that it's particularly well justified (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is against Wikipedia policy - there are always instances of people doing things which may be inappropriate), and wine is not "cuisine" but agricultural production, and so forth. I know that the French sometimes put a glass of wine in their stew, but there is certainly no tradition of such things in England. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Almost every cuisine page represents a section on beverages. 2A02:C7C:74AD:AF00:5C35:104D:9E4E:D332 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Then a lot of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ... if we're serious about focusing on "cuisine", then we need to ask "do these things form part of the cuisine", and only if the answer is "reliable sources say yes" should we add and cite anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Almost every cuisine page represents a section on beverages. 2A02:C7C:74AD:AF00:5C35:104D:9E4E:D332 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
On pictures of coronation chicken
Something something WP:BRD, though I didn't think it would be controversial to swap this for that. I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed. How can you stand behind the preposterous suggestion that grey mound of sludge is archetypal coronation chicken, a dish noted for its distinct colour?
I agree there are in fact no good pictures of coronation chicken on Wikimedia. Someone should change this. In the meantime though, I support yellow indistinct mound of sludge over white indistinct mound of sludge. It's also worth noting that the picture I changed it to is the one in use on the main Coronation Chicken article. I would like to hear more about your reasoning to the contrary @Chiswick Chap BrigadierG (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for discussing. We may need a better picture, or the colour balance may need to be adjusted, or someone forgot the turmeric; but the other picture was worse. If anyone can take a decent one, that'd be great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- In what way was it worse? I'm not sure there are many faults worse than coronation chicken looking grey. Let's try to be objective here. Perhaps a useful question to ask is "which photo would be more useful to a person trying to identify coronation chicken when visiting England" - since that is what Encyclopedias were originally (reference guides). BrigadierG (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Neither photo is very good. Sorry, but the awful grey membranes depicted in "Pollo Coronación" and presented on a plate with a too-busy design are unappetizing, to say the least. At least the version buried in yellow sauce looks edible, unlike the other ghastly production. Carlstak (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- The images are not good, and do not depict a 1953-recipe coronation chicken either. Constance Spry's original recipe called for mayonnaise (naturally yellow), curry powder (which contained chilli, turmeric, and other spices, adding yellow), red wine (yeah, red), and apricots (yeah, orange) but not raisins, which were added in ghastly 1970s versions of the dish. If anyone would care to make the dish properly --- hell, I could make one! --- and photograph it decently, it'd be appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- You know what? This is now my god-given mission. I shall create new knowledge untold for future generations. I shall do what 20 years of Wikipedia editors could not.
- I shall prepare coronation chicken that doesn't look like shit. BrigadierG (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hooray! ;-) Carlstak (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Congrats, BrigadierG, you did it. Your new Coronation chicken photo looks infinitely better than the Pollo Coronación version. Personally, I'm not crazy about the viscous yellow sauce (nature of the dish I guess). So how did it taste? That's what really counts. Carlstak (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's among my favourite sandwich fillings (alongside prawn mayo and ham + chutney) and it was bloody lovely as far as I'm concerned. BrigadierG (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Congrats, BrigadierG, you did it. Your new Coronation chicken photo looks infinitely better than the Pollo Coronación version. Personally, I'm not crazy about the viscous yellow sauce (nature of the dish I guess). So how did it taste? That's what really counts. Carlstak (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hooray! ;-) Carlstak (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The images are not good, and do not depict a 1953-recipe coronation chicken either. Constance Spry's original recipe called for mayonnaise (naturally yellow), curry powder (which contained chilli, turmeric, and other spices, adding yellow), red wine (yeah, red), and apricots (yeah, orange) but not raisins, which were added in ghastly 1970s versions of the dish. If anyone would care to make the dish properly --- hell, I could make one! --- and photograph it decently, it'd be appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Agriculture, food and drink good articles
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Everyday life
- GA-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Everyday life
- GA-Class vital articles in Everyday life
- GA-Class Food and drink articles
- High-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- GA-Class England-related articles
- High-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages