From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Donald O. Roskam invented the concept of the crouton, on how we use it today. Started Roskam Baking Company in 1923 and is based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You may have studied to be a chef but you certainly never took English, haha. (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

His grammar does not matter. Very rude of you.- (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Awful first sentence[edit]

This first sentence long, even for a run-on, which is a long sentence itself, by definition, and should be changed, particularly with reference to the cause "some prefer to eat them alone", which could indicate that some people eat croutons, or due to the non-specificity of the term "them", could also refer to salads or soups, by themselves, in a dark room perhaps, and while certainly some people do eat croutons in solitude - and also soups and salads (though perhaps not at the same time) - this does not add much to clarity of the first sentence, and therefore, this first run-on sentence should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

References needed[edit]

To satisfy the editor who insists that placing tags on this article is drive-by tagging: those tags are intended to draw attention to the fact that the article has a reference section, but not a single in-line reference. One source is given (as an external link), but this is obviously insufficient to source this article. As this issue, which apparently was insufficiently obvious before) is now addressed on the talk page, I trust that the "drive-by tagging" issue is now resolved. --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand what drive-by tagging is. If you find a problem, fix it, don’t clutter up articles with templates — if that is the only contribution you can make, why even bother. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is you who misunderstands what drive-by tagging is and who misunderstands why these tags exist (please read the guideline linked to above as well as further links you may find in there). Following your reasoning, we should just delete those tags beause there could never be a valid reason to place them. Tags, however, play an important role. They populate cleanup categories and some editors who go around trying to fix problems find the articles in need of work by using those cats. In addition, readers (as opposed to editors) might think that it is normal for WP to have an article without a single reference, which obviously would be wrong. And readers who see a maintenance tag and know something about the subject might perhaps be stimulated to fix them and become editors, not just readers. It is absolutely not necessary for the tagging editor to fix the signaled problems. Of course, if possible, that's preferable. But sometimes somebody does not know much about a certain subject. That doesn't preclude an editor from signaling an obvious problem (like here, where the lack of any references is quite obvious), so that it may be brought to the attention of other editors who perhaps have the knowledge required to fix the issue. So, once more, I'll restore those tags and given that their importance has now been explained to you hope that you'll leave them in place. Even if you are not convinced by what I have said, you should realize that there is project-wide consensus about the usefulness of these tags and continued removal will not be constructive. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nah, it’s you. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a very mature reaction and says a lot about your willingness to discuss about issues. As do your edit summaries (like "thanks for nothing XYZ"). --Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
It’s foolish to think only immature people can disagree with you, Randy. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that only immature people disagree with me, because that would obviously be incorrect. I said something about your reaction, is all. --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Uhuh. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)