Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink

We now have our own barnstar

{{The Food and Drink Barnstar}}

To use this template, add
{{subst:The Food and Drink Barnstar|put your citation here ~~~~}} to the talk page of the user to whom you wish to award it. Here is how you it will look:

		The Food and Drink Barnstar
		You put your message here. Don't forget to sign it with four tildes!

Other barnstars can be found on the barnstars page, all follow the same format.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

New Award

As audited food and drink articles are underrepresented, I have dangled a new carrot here bon appetit Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Lactation within the scope of this project?

Noticed that Talk:Lactation shows a banner of this project, does that make any sense? Richiez (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That was place there three years ago in a bot tagging run. IMHO, yes, because milk is the very first thing we ever consume as mammals. It is the primal, most fundamental food that we, as humans, provide for our young. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 11:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the precise physicochemical nature of resistant starch (RS3) ?

I removed this post because its author is publicizing a research paper that he had written. As it appears to be self promotional, I believe its inclusion violates the guidelines of Wikipedia and deleted it as such. If anyone disagrees with me, please feel free to research it and restore if I am incorrect. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This deletion has been bugging me. The author seems to have disclosed his self interest, and one link to a third-party published journal article of which he is the author is not prohibited by conflict of interest rules: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged." Additionally, this is a talk page, not an article page. The subject matter of the post is highly technical, and may not appear to some with an interest in food to be all that relevant, but I'm quite certain it is relevant to both food and health based upon the reading I have done in relation to bread, wheat, and starch topics, as well as health. On the amylase-Resistant Starch page, it didn't appear there are any citations with as early a date (I need to double check to be sure) as Berry's cite. PubMed has some listings for a "Berry CS" using the same generalized technical words, a signature of sorts, suggesting he is who he claims to be. While it is likely certain Berry is biased, as we all are, each in our own ways, he is clearly a scientist with some demonstrable expertise in the subject matter, and I worry that deleting all of his words is censorship of the worst kind. (I don't have time to fully flesh this out right now, but am strongly leaning towards reversing the deletion, even though I personally am biased against "pay for knowledge" constructs.) Gzuufy (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a Talk page. I thought the main rules were to be civil, assume good faith, etc. The post seemed a little odd and random, but I was surprised to see it deleted. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I deleted because the posting because the person who placed it here was advertising his own research and its corresponding paper, and, despite this being a talk page, placing links to your own material is improper. If you feel that it doesn't violate the guidelines and a consensus develops stating restoring the post is proper, I have no problem with that. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

...besides which, this isn't a forum or discussion page for general food issues. Pyrope 12:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

From this project's front page under "Goals", "2. Coordination of editing on food, drink, and restaurant related articles." It could be Berry was asking (albeit in a non-direct way) for help with flawed or incomplete historical citing on the resistant starch page. If so, such a request would seem appropriate here, particularly given that this project's banner is on that article's talk page. If resistant starch is, as you say, too general a topic for this forum, then should the WikiProject Food and Drink banner be removed from that page? Gzuufy (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is a specific question relating to resistant starch then it should be brought up on the resistant starch page. If there is a wider question relating to the way that we deal with articles on the chemical components of food then you bring it here. That is by the by, in any case, as this was clearly not a question, comment or suggestion. The section was a didactic statement which ended with an invitation to look at a pay site. That's not discussion, that's spam. The removal was fully justified. Pyrope 15:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The posting was an excerpt from his paper as far as I can tell, so I have a hard time believing it was a question in any form. It appears to me it was a solicitation to come look at his paper, and to pay him for the privilege of doing so. The site he linked to is a pay to view research site where individuals post their work and charge others to look at it. If he truly had a question it would have been easier to simply ask about what he wanted to know. If he were seeking someone to perform a peer review on his work this is not the proper forum to do so. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Pasta pictures

Hi everyone! Recently I've started dealing with the articles on pasta types. First of all, these are almost all woefully weak; there's a lot of expansion and maybe merging needed. But I'm here asking for help from anyone with a camera or some culinary skills. While some of the articles have great pictures, most have none at all. Some of the ones that do have very low quality images, or ones where the pasta is heavily sauced or a part of a dish and not the image's primary focus.

Basically, what I'm asking for are photos of pasta types for the articles that need new or better ones. Ideally these should be unsauced and easy to see. Cooked or uncooked are fine, and how much pasta is in the image is up for whatever you think is best. This should be pretty easy for some of them; I'm sure some of you have pastas in your cabinet that you can take photos of, or maybe you're a better sleuth than I am and can find photos online. Hell, if you find or make some good stuff maybe you'll find a barnstar coming your way. Thanks to anyone who can help!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The best place to start would be Wikimedia Commons, with literally thousands of available images. Here is a good example of a pasta picture:

There is a whole category of pasta images to choose from that will allow you to properly illustrate the articles, with a really good gallery here. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Mercy (drink) - request for sources

Howdy, After seeing an article mentioning an hangover preventative called Mercy I was looking for sources to see if it passed WP:N. What I found I put in User:Joe407/Mercy (drink). I was wondering if anyone has seen other WP:RS that could give what to work with in creating an article. (of course, editing is also welcome.) Joe407 (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Destubbification drive

How would everyone feel about a destubbing drive for the month of April ? We have lots of them in the various category:food and drink stubs that need to be worked on. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Full English Breakfast

The Oxford English Dictionary says that "the term Full Monty could also have a military usage, being "the full monty" cooked English breakfast insisted upon by Field Marshal Montgomery".--Tepife (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)tepife

Five grains

I came across this article today and don't know what to make of it. It definitely needs some expert input, and this isn't my area. Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

About the page "bean to bar chocolate" - please help me move

hi all

I stumbled on the entry on chocolate "bean to bar" and I should point that the list really has a lot of very misleading information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bean-to-bar_chocolate_manufacturers

In order to solve this there are 2 options imho: changing the title to something more open like "list of chocolate makers" or start a extremely difficult debate to define what bean-to-bar should be and in extension even on an etymology level what "chocolate" is.

So I would suggest in the short term to rename the title of the page as a fair and honest correction, but user --Kateshortforbob _talk very kindly pointed out I cannot do that as a new user. She also suggested to ask for someone here at Food to assists me on "moving" this page.