Talk:Pizza/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Detailed Feedback / Suggestions from October 2nd COMM 3460 Class

Your peers have suggestions for 5 major components of the Pizza article.

• Origins/History: Etymology looks great; kudos for including the language origins from several cultures. In the History of pizza section, a key thing that was observed is how pizza's taste is described first as something sweet (i.e. honey as a listed ingredient), and then quickly described more as a savory dish. We are missing the connection here, and while these points are valid, a transition is necessary to emphasize how pizza is a dish that can transcend so many food categories (dinner, dessert, etc). We also suggest elaboration of pizza's predominance in other countries. It's undebatably a worldwide phenomenon. :)
  • Thanks for the suggestion! I have 1) added the transition to the history section 2) added reliable source to the Etymology section. Zy87 (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• American Culture: Great job on Pizza in the US; whatever you would want to explain in this section has already been discussed in History, so we suggest you reformat that here with the original authors' consent, so that that info is brought into discussion in the US context under this section. We also think it would be great to discuss the rise of chain pizza in the states--think Papa Johns, Pizza, Domino's, etc (as well as frozen/prepared brands); perhaps you could even form a small table with these companies' logos and founding years. Pizza is a huge business in the states! Smaller suggestion: remove "therefore" to make copy read more neutrally.
• Consumption: Under "Varieties," which includes various countries, there lacks detail of the different varies of pizza offered in these nations. I suggest a new section that discusses the kinds of chain restaurants popular within these countries, as well as statistics comparing consumption across them (which pizzas are most embraced? what is it about their preparation manner that makes them unique to XYZ region? etc..). Maybe this is a good time to talk about sweet pizzas! Where are they offered? Abdavis329 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Abdavis329! We actually decided that the variety section should be very limited in its content since there are pages specifically devoted to the variety of pizzas by country. Good catch on the randomness of the list of countries under the variety section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abs296 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Health: Your health section is a helpful addition to the discussion of Pizza, but it seems that the two main points -- that eating mass-distributed pizza is not conducive to a healthy lifestyle, and that eating pizza in a more traditional manner lacks those risks -- are disconnected. I suggest that you better transition between the two kinds of pizzas, perhaps by introducing their very different preparation styles in this section rather than in the sections prior (or reiterating the information). What about the two kinds of eating scenarios (i.e. in a Papa John's versus in grandma's Italian kitchen) creates such different health associations? Is it the ingredients? The amount consumed? Portion size? Big opportunity here to discuss cultural differences & lifestyle comparions. Additionally, cite more specific health effects of pizza consumption. Hkm24 (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Part of the problem comes from the disparate scope and methods in studying pizza vs. the constituent ingredients in pizza. Lets say some studies correlate high sat-fat or high carb diets with detrimental health effects. One expects the health impact of pizza to be equivalent to the aggregated health effects of the constituent ingredients, and one might then, intuitively, avoid eating pizza. We should be hesitant to make such assumptions. If a different study claims that eating pizza correlates with positive health effects, then its unclear how to rectify the seemingly contradictory findings. The disparity may be attributable to error or noise in previous studies, or more likely, variables external to the scope of the studies. There are also far fewer people investigating the effects of “pizza” as there are investigating the constituent macro/micro nutrients of pizza, and we can't make claims about the former given information about the latter. Information about pizza's health effects might remain somewhat discontinuous until we find specific sources to connect the dots. Additions are also piecemeal, so it might be a while before this section takes cohesive form. Avibavi (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Avibavi Abs296. I agree that the health issues associated with pizza are not easily aggregated. Do you think it would be helpful to make this point in the article? Dmh265 (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sources/Organization & Style: The structure of the article is good; the topics flow and it is a good order. In the etymology section, make sure that you add sources for every single bullet because that is knowledge that you got from somewhere else. Some of them had citations but others did not.
  • Thanks! Done for that parrt. Zy87 (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Combined effort of Hkm24 (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC), (Isabella.krell (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)), MSarahKurahashiSofue (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2014, Jit3893 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent analysis of the article, and related article. On thing I will mention is that you make reference to "reformat that here with the original authors' consent". Although some of the past authors may have opinions about article content, it is important to remember that no one WP:OWNs an article, article development is a collaboration, and once it's out there it belongs to everyone. That said, in light of the discussion in the previous section, the content should develop in the two articles in a related, but independent manner. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Progress review of Pizza collaboration

I have reviewed progress on this article, and these are my review and thoughts on further improvements that can be made:

• Expansion of the lede, does not currently summarize the article
• Etymology section seems to be complete and adequately sourced
• History of pizza section summarizes the History of pizza article, however statements need improving
  • Ancient Greek and Roman statements unsourced
  • Double mentioning of Margherita
• Cooking section's intro paragraph is unsourced
  • Crust section could use further expansion and sources (stuffed crust, gluten free crusts, whole wheat crusts, etc)
  • Pizza cheese could use expansion, probably copied selectively from existing sourced content at pizza cheese
  • Toppings section is completely unsourced, this could be an easy find in the introduction section of any pizza cookbook
  • Could use a section on cooking equipment, pizza oven, pizza stones, etc.
• Varieties section is not bad
  • Italy section is well sourced, looks good
  • United States section is not bad, examples section section should be converted to a sourced list like the examples in the Italy section
• Preparation section is primarily about frozen pizzas, with a bit on take and bake pizzeria and almost nothing on home backed or normal delivery style pizza. Need expansion and sourcing for each type
• Records section is good and well sourced
• Health issues section is good and well sourced
• Similar dishes section is informative, but few of the items have sources that describe their similarity to pizza. Although this may seem self evident, in order to justify inclusion in the pizza article, some connection should be made.

The article could do with some more new content as well. Good candidates for new sections might include "Pizza industry" with sub sections on delivery, online ordering, etc. The Cooking section needs more information on equipment, or if there is enough content Equipment might make it's own section. @Zy87, Abs296, Hkm24, and Avibavi: @Nebelmeister, LeshedInstructor, SovalValtos, and Isabella.krell: @MSarahKurahashiSofue and Jit3893: --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's looking good. The varieties section is much better balanced. Agree about the lead, but perhaps that could done last after other sections are done. The external links section is empty. If there are no external links (which is fine, good actually), that section could be deleted and the Commons and sisterlinks boxes put in the last section that does exist, which would be Further reading. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014

There is a typo. Under the United States tab, the first line reads, "United Sates." Please rectify. Olddawg90 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Done and thank you Cannolis (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing from Cornell INFO 3460 Group

NOTE: At this point our Cornell University course assignment is over so we will be checking this page/editing much less often. Major thanks to all of those who helped us during our assignment! Abs296 (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• We merged, updated, and improved the wording of the content from History of Pizza into Pizza - Zy87 (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, there is some duplicate info at Pizza and History of pizza, but that's inevitable when writing two articles on similar subjects. It's my opinion that regardless of whatever numbers Wikipedia guidelines spit out for justifying a move or not, the two articles are both independently long enough to warrant their separation and distinction. As well, both articles have tremendous potential for expansion, making any merging of the articles just an obstacle to be undone later down the line.--ɱ (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand that but just because they have been separate for some time does not mean they should remain independent. According to User:NickPenguin (above) the very reason to merge pages is to prevent duplicate effort from continuing. Abs296 (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a valid reason for merging the two pages. The only reason you've given so far is that one user thinks it'll be better for organizational purposes; I disagree. It's the easy way out; we can still sort through the text of the two articles to eliminate unneeded duplicate information without merging. If you merge, we're just going to un-merge within a few weeks anyway, you're just creating more work for all of us.--ɱ (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Plus you're ignoring some of my primary arguments. It's not that I think that "just because they have been separate for some time" means that "they should remain independent". I never stated that at all. I'm saying that "the two articles are both independently long enough to warrant their separation and distinction", and I'm saying that "both articles have tremendous potential for expansion". Both arguments are good ones for opposing merging.--ɱ (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify my earlier comment. The question we should first ask is, " is the history of pizza notable?" Since the answer is demonatratably yes, then we should follow that with "do we need a separate article on this subject, independent of a well sourced parent article?" My answer would be no, because in this stage of the article development, there is no size reason to split the content, and development of the content will occur far faster in the parent article, rather than in a narrow split. At a later date, when the section has developed, it can be resplit and the subsection summarizing.

That said, the real purpose of my comment was to demonstrate to the class that much of the content they were going to improve the article with already existed, in another article. The history section of the pizza article should summarize the history of pizza article, but it didn't. Now that it has been rectified, the merging issue can be sidestepped for the time being, or discussed at greater length. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"There is no size reason to split the content". How do I emphasize this: This isn't a page splitting proposal, and therefore it doesn't need to qualify for page splitting qualifications. As well, merging just to later un-merge makes absolutely no sense. It's a lot of effort that can be better spent improving either article.--ɱ (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was wrong. Moving forward, effort should be made to turn the history section into a summary of the history of pizza article, which currently it does not adequately do. A more general summary, perhaps with country specific subsections would be ideal. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the continuing advice and suggestions! We really appreciate all the help you have given us :) Abs296 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• We summarized the content in the Italy subsection of the variety section since it was overwhelming the section. We took the more detailed information and moved it to a Italy section, that we created, in the List of pizza varieties by country page. Abs296 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• We moved content that was in the "Additional Varieties" section and placed it on the Pizza in the United States page since that was where it should have been all along. Abs296 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• We reformatted the varieties section to include sub sections for examples. It now is more readable and appears nicer in the page. Abs296 (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Health Issues: Relevant factual data was needed to substantiate claims of high sodium content. USDA figures on sodium content was added to back this up. Further elaboration is needed. Dmh265 (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• History: We added new content from the main article according to the the suggestions provided by our peers. Zy87 (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Idea for the lede

Pizza whilst once a simple foodstuff has become as a result of commercial pressure additionally an enriched product with greater emphasis on the toppings rather than the simple. SovalValtos (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

And how that can be used to improve this article?--Chamith (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping for other editors ideas, but simply I think the lede/lead should reflect more of the content of sections such as History, Cheese and Records which chronicle elaboration of the toppings.SovalValtos (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2014

Please change a few parts of this document. "Peppers, medicare, and vitamins are included in this specific generality..." should be changed to "Much toppings?" Mayabellaxo (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - no mention of "medicare" - Arjayay (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014

please change 80.150.104.59 (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Your request is blank. Stickee (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation suggestion

Hi, I'd like to suggest using the following as a citation for some of the areas that talk about different types of pizza ovens. http://pinkbird.org/w/How_to_build_a_pizza_oven I'd add it myself however don't have permission due to the protection level. Pizzaman111 (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A self-published website is not a reliable source, per WP:SPS. --McGeddon (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2015

easycooking-recipes.com 182.190.210.207 (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Furthermore read WP:ELNO before making the request again.--Chamith (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Pizza

There is no mention of Happy Pizza

Ilken 2602:63:C2A2:AF00:C941:1DD2:22F6:22BD (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "pizza"

I lived in Italy for a while and the pronunciation is pretty much the same as in English. Perhaps accent can distort it a little, but I think it's pretty much the same.

Besides, Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia, not a foreign language dictionary, so I don't think it's generally appropriate to throw in foreign pronunciations, even if the word was borrowed from another language (and English borrows a ton of foreign words).Kurzon (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for writing! No, pronunciation is not the same, and also in this case we would just write "English and Italian:...". About the foreign pronunciations on Wikipedia, their usage follows the manual of style:

"When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first."

Generally, if you don't agree with this rule, I advise you to bring this issue at the manual of style discussion page, instead to delete randomly foreign pronunciations, a work which is useless, since sooner or later they will be reinserted. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I just read that section and I think it's referring to proper names, eg "Venezuela", "Nikita Kruschev". I don't think this applies to common, routine words like pizza.Kurzon (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I will open a thread on the manual of style asking an opinion then. I think that this is an issue that should be clarified. Alex2006 (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If you think about it, most every word in English was borrowed from some other language, because words are very rarely invented out of nothing. "Pizza" was taken from Italian, but is really a routine English word now. It's not exactly some esoteric word used in specific contexts, like yakuza or jihad.

Plus, who needs to be taught the pronunciation of pizza?Kurzon (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the discussion seems to have stalled, I've decided to be bold and edited out the IPAs again.Kurzon (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to check this thread! Yes, after the opinions collected in the Manual of Style discussion page I think that you are right. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Gluten Free Pizza

there should be a section on gluten free pizza what the heck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.29 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Pizza al padellino or pizza al tegamino

I noticed there is no mention of the so-called pizza al padellino or pizza al tegamino ("pan pizza" in English). It is a variety of pizza that is found in Italy, mostly in Turin, and is basically a small pizza baked in a pan - so-called padellino or tegamino (literally "small pan") - rather than al mattone (i.e. on the bricks of the pizza oven): it is round and has a larger crust than a Neapolitan pizza (like Sicilian sfincione, in a way) and it usually goes with farinata in Turin's locales. It is not certain where this pizza originates from, some think it was invented in Turin - where it is particularly common today - but it might as well be a spin-off of some other specialty from elsewhere in Italy. I read that Greek pizza and Chicago-style pizza are both baked in a pan but a distinctive feature of pizza al padellino is its very dimension, which is remarkably smaller than regular pizzas (that's why it fits in a small pan). Could you please add a reference to it in this page, if not a separate page on its own? Thank you.--Teno85 (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Images of pizza

The main photos on the article show German or American varieties of pizza, which are very different in taste, aspect and history from the real traditional Neapolitan pizza. Which was not invented but created in Naples. Being pizza bread a very, very important matter for the proud Neapolitan culture (around 6 million people speak daily Neapolitan) it would be nice to respect it and show at the top of the page the traditional Neapolitan versions of pizza (example Margherita: http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/wp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/pizza-napoletana.jpg) (example Marinara: http://www.scattidigusto.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/pizza-Marinara-960x639.jpg) Then the other versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.43.217.186 (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Misspelling?

Lots of words are misspelled, does this really need to be part of the entry?

Wow u missspellled missspellled, it's spellled with three sss and three lll. silly 92.39.206.250 (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Reorder United States typical pizza types.

Chicago and New York are by far the most common regional varieties of Pizza. California is much less common and I've never in heard of Greek pizza. If you still want to include all four, at least list Chicago and New York first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiser Soze 99 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

US mentioned in intro

Can someone remove this? Pizzas are a common fast food item through much of the western world, not only in the US and also not more in the US than in other countries. Please throw out the US-only POV, also people from other countries are using wikipedia. (don't know why this page is semi-protected) --85.151.204.175 (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The closest I could find to "Pizzas are a common fast food item through much of the western world" is "a common fast food item in the United States and the United Kingdom," this doesn't show POV from a certain area, it just shows where it can be commonly found as a fast food item. Datbubblegumdoe^{[talk – contribs]} 04:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Image

The picture shown on the Pizza page is horrible, not what PIZZA is supposed to be. I took the liberty to upload a file in wikimedia to donate to Wikipedia the real Neapolitan Pizza

I agree, I'll replace it and see what people think. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the previous image as the image IP uploaded was tagged as a copy vio. -- ChamithN (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

ChamithN, oh I didn't catch that... thanks for the fix. Can it even stay on this talk page? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's better to remove it from here as well (which I did). Nevertheless, it'll be deleted entirely from Wikipedia soon enough. -- ChamithN (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly Bad Citation

Went to add to the statement "Antica Pizzeria Port'Alba in Naples is widely regarded as the first pizzeria." as it clearly violates secondary source requirements (which I'd like to just copy and paste the ref for but can't because of protection; it was 16 at the time of this talk edit and referenced an online business directory), but found this page is protected for some weird reason. Please remove statement or verify. 2601:204:D680:1A1:BE5F:F4FF:FE35:1B41 (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, me again, any word on this? It's a link to a business association directory. Not exactly a credible source. I'd do it myself but can't. Thanks for taking the time to make wikipedia a tad better. 2601:204:D603:5F31:BE5F:F4FF:FE35:1B41 (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I just removed the sentence, which makes claims even the questionable source doesn't. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@2601:204:D680:1A1:BE5F:F4FF:FE35:1B41 Thus the way of the world. The article Pizza is semi-protected. My pizza, however, is fully protected  ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)