Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Patchogue (talk | contribs) at 20:40, 30 September 2007 (→‎Pot Roast is not a cut of beef: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Two possible issues

Health and Nutrition On the pickled cucumber talk page, someone wanted nutrition facts. While this is good information about food, I know that entries are better if they follow the same format across the board. Is this information we should include about fairly unprocessed foods? What about more elaborate foods? If so, how can that be sourced? Or, should we refer to an external soure of food information?

How different is different enough? What should qualify as a separate entry for foods -- how different does it need to be? Or how little difference should make it merge with a parent entry? Are there already standards on this, and if so, where do I find them, and if not, where should the question be posted to get best response?
I make Shepard's Pie all the time, with crust, meat (no wine, just tomatoes), corn/veggie layer, potatoes. But some people claim that something as far different as just meat (with rich sauce) with mashed yams on top is also Shepard's pie? How will we deal with this... distance? Food is necessarily a fluid, evolving world, and there aren't really "experts" so much as in other fields. What counts as citations? etc. Utopienne 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Utopienne 18:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are valid problems with different foods. All dishes and recipes have an origin, but not all are published or readily available. Recipes however, are not part of Wikipedia, they go with the Wikipedia cookbook (I don't have the link off hand). If there is a traceable origin for a dish however, then that primary source should be used for the citation and then under a separate heading in the article should be "variations", but sometimes the variations are so absurd they don't even resemble the original. I really do not see adding nutrition information about dishes to an article on here as a good thing though for as you state, each version can be different and quite honestly unless one is an expert at that subject, they could be completely inaccurate, forget to put in an item or allergen, someone reads that article eats the item and has an allergic reaction and someone is going to be sued, I'm not sure who. Wow these are complicated questions, I hope others chime in.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 19:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of chefs

Your list of chefs is on AFD at the moment, please help me improve it as I don't want to end up looking at some shitty plain list generated by the category system when I could have something which actually tells me why people are notable. Kappa 10:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pancake Photo

I have a great photo off a typical pancake with various fruits, syrup and cream. This is a great photo as it shows the detail of the untypical short and fat pancakes, if any one want me to add it to the page just ask, i shall at request put it on the pancake page.T saston 22:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no one want the photo then...T saston 15:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need anyone's permission or approval to add it, saston.
Peter Isotalo 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic taste

Looking to get some more input on this. The suggestion I've put forward is to merge it with taste - I don't see any need for a separate article as the main one is only about gustation. Please drop by and vote/comment. Richard001 09:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I am new to this, but I noticed that one of the external links (Homebistro.com) goes to a website that sells food, I'm not sure if that's allowed? It doesn't have any explanation of the subject at all. Thanks, 20:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be removed, it would be considered spam.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethoxyquin

Could someone with knowledge of the subject please take a look at Ethoxyquin. This is a food additive (often a "preservative") that every site that isn't Wikipedia says is potentially harmful. The current article reads almost like propaganda, as it references an FDA statement from 1989. There are many reports from the FDA in the 18 year interim that suggest the opposite, besides the fact that the American FDA isn't the ultimate authority on everything. Also, is there any list or category with potentially harmful food additives? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegetable oils

I have proposed the demotion of List of vegetable oils as I feel it is a bad example to those looking to improve lists on Wikipedia. Plainly put it is badly formatted and inconsistent. See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of vegetable oils. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritional Information

Could nutrition information be placed with the various fruits and vegetables? I came to the Olive article looking for some nutrition information (such as antioxidant content), but couldn't find it. This external source answered my questions: Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Olives. Perhaps this source could be used to fill in nutritional information in various articles in this Wiki project? This Wiki project isn't my area of expertise, so I will defer to those of you who are working on it. Thanks! --Dulcimerist 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Administrator

I just wanted to let everyone know on here that I have applied to be an administrator. I believe if I am nominated to become such I will be able to greater serve this project when people have issues as-well-as when I see issues. If you are an administrator and would like to support or oppose my nomination please stop by Requests for adminship/Tanner-Christopher.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheeses is basically almost completely inactive, but it does have a template which seems to be in use. Propose that the existing content from that project be merged into this one. Whether that group should continue to exist as a task force/work group is another matter entirely, and one I personally have no strong opinion on. John Carter 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of these spin-off sister projects have the propensity to do this. I think there are people in the project still editing cheese articles, but just not active on the project page. I'd like to hear what some of the people who were part of that project think though before I fully support closing the project down and merging its components into this one.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christopher - Jeremy (Jerem43 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I have redone the projects page, I will rework on the Intro section and on the scope and other items. I have created a user box for the project and will create a banner when I get a chance. I think it is a valid project and just needs so support and direction again, which I think happens with many projects. With some visualizing, much like this project, it should thrive again. I will also include those members in our monthly newsletter, so that will suffice as a merge for the moment I believe. I am removing the merge tags.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger - I think clearly-defined subprojects like this are generally a good thing, and even when noone's posting on the Project page the articles can still be ticking away. Certainly during my ongoing assessment marathon I've tried to add a Cheese tag when I remember to - although I admit I will leave the FAD tag in place, whereas for restaurants I tend to change the FAD tag to FoodService unless it is particularly associated with a recipe/drink.FlagSteward 21:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin wanted for Souplantation

Coffee is at FAC

FWIW, Coffee is at FAC. Should have FAs etc. on project page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment for article Burger King

Hey all, I am looking for a reassessment of the Burger King article. I have recently done significant work to it and feel that it might qualify for good article status. here are a couple of reasons:

  1. The opening to the article has been significantly rewritten so that it summarizes the full article;
  2. There are currently 45-50 citations, all of which follow the guidelines of WP:NOR and WP:IS;
  3. The article complies with the WP:NPOV standards
  4. The article now contains a good deal of information that would help the reader get an accurate feel for the subject.

As a primary contributer to the article, I feel that I am not qualified to nominate the article and really would like some outside feedback to see if my opinion is valid, and if it is of GA status, to have someone please make the nomination.

Thanks for the time, and don't be shy as I will take any criticism in good form while all the the time ranting and raving about it. - Jeremy (Jerem43 19:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hey Jeremy, you should also submit it to Good article nominations for a full peer review.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will Chris, but I really want some outside feedback if I should make any changes\upgrades etc before I do. - Jeremy (Jerem43 20:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ah okay, I got you, when I get back from class tonight I will take a look at it.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at it, I went on a correction spree in the thing and am going to continue working on theos itemes you listed and cite to my little hearts content. - Jeremy (Jerem43 16:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Holy cow

So who has been the eager one that rated so many tagged articles recently?--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be me then - I was rather hoping that noone would notice until I'd actually finished. Original hope was to get them all done by the end of the month, having not managed to do any for two days I'm not sure if I'll make that. I'm sure you'll find to quibble with - that's OK, when doing so many your brain does tend to frazzle a bit :-), but it's a start towards setting some priorities for the Project. Didn't help someone adding bare Project tags to about 400 articles whilst I was in the middle of it :-(, but we're getting there. FlagSteward 00:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HAHA, I have no quibble with the work you have been doing at all for the project, I and I am sure the whole project thanks you, great work. I've tried in the past to keep up with the rating but to no avail as I try to do too many things probably.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 05:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That probably came across wrong, but I was trying to be serious - assessments should reflect a community view rather than one man's diktat, and I certainly won't be offended by people tweaking things up or down a category - there's lots of cases where I had to ponder which side of a line an article should go. And I'm sure there will be one or two times in 1000+ articles where I just plain copy-and-pasted the wrong rating by accident... But I figured it's better to have things roughly right than not assessed at all. Folk may feel I've been a bit harsh on some of the US stuff in particular, but that's just me trying to think of WP:CSB.
I was hoping to hold off suggesting this until I'd finished my assessments, but in general the assessments could do with a quick look from the regulars, there's some real doozies in the stuff that's already been assessed - Toffifee was at High Importance FFS! I'm hoping to be done by Monday night, Sunday night if things go well - the trouble is that it's not just assessing for FAD, I've been adding tags for other Projects (I figure getting national Projects involved will help a lot with dishes in particular), copyediting some of the egregiously bad articles, putting some up for merger etc etc. All stuff that needs doing, but it just takes a lot of time.
Something else to think about is how we can tag more articles - I'd guess at least 30% of the FAD articles out there aren't currently in the Project. One thing I have noticed is how few drinks articles I'm assessing, I'm not sure if that's just because the drinks guys tend to assess when they add a Project tag, or there's a lot out there untagged. FlagSteward 13:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I obviously see what you mean now. There are many articles that I ran across as well with the same situation. I know about the 'lots of time thing for doing many things on here. Assessing is a tedious process as well and it is good that more people do this or check them as we get more viewpoints. As for drinks, I know most of the wine stuff was switched over to WikiProject Wine, but the other drink oriented projects do not have rating scales, so we should have our tag on them with the ability to have a rating system on them.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 22:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Culinary Institute of America contributions from User:Jnormy

Would someone who hasn't got 165 articles left to assess :-)) like to review recent edits by Jnormy, sort out some of their titles and perhaps have a word? I don't doubt that the CIA is notable, but I suspect we have a WP:COI issue here, and the articles need a bit of wikifying. FlagSteward 17:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it, the CIA article needs to be sourced as I tried fixing it at one point but it is a mess again. I'm taking a look at his other work, don't worry.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Culinary Institute of America article has been rewritten and sourced as it had a lot of plagiarism on it but I didn't want the article deleted. I flagged two of the other articles for speedy deletion and rewrote the Augie Award article with proper citation.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pot Roast is not a cut of beef

Pot roast should not be listed as a cut of beef. It's a way to cook a cut of beef.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink&oldid=161386567"