Talk:Vegeta (condiment)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Vegeta (food))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect 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.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 
WikiProject Croatia (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon Vegeta (condiment) is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Brands (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands 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.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

pronunciation[edit]

How do you pronounce it? "Veh-Jee-Tah"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAz69x (talkcontribs) 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(A bit late, but this ain't on my watchlist). Veh-ghe-tah, to rhyme with "vendetta". I saw it in few Greek and Bosnian food markets in Minneapolis, so I guess it should be available in Canada as well. Duja 12:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Invention?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Snow consensus to oppose the usage of the particular word--invented. Developed appears to be a good alternative.Winged Blades Godric 14:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


Should Wikipedia describe this food product as an "invention"? (See this edit) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Flavored salt is a very old idea. More to the point, there is no evidence in the article for notability ? DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • No. The product was designed, not invented. Maproom (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No That does not fit the common usage of the word "invention." The makers might have a patent, but that does not make an "invention." Damotclese (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I see the unique concept here as more than "seasoned salt" but more like "umami salt" or "salt with MSG". They're quite common in central and eastern Europe and Vegeta is far from the only brand. Aromat (Knorr, Swiss, 1953) is a major one in the West, and is very popular in South Africa. In Western Europe it was more common to use a stock cube, usually beef or chicken extracts and less MSG as a specific ingredient. I'm happy to see the product type as an "invention", but this is broader than Vegeta and I've no idea if Vegeta was the first.
Seasoned salts have a distinct taste, often paprika, and often a strong colour. The Aromat and Vegeta types are more bland and are mostly about umami rather than a recognisable spice.
For notability, again I see the concept as a strong one, individual brands would have to demonstrate it for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Dingley (talkcontribs) 10:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: My previous comment seems to have got lost as I am travelling and not on my own machine. Trying again. To call it an invention is silly, or we would have to call every new variation on a recipe an invention or design etc, at least if it is marketed under a name. That would be neither practical nor desirable. Call it a brand of condiment or something. The exact wording is not important as long as it is clear and simple.
As for notability, let's not get things out of perspective; notability of a product is not the same as notability of a person or of a town. Any officially (and many an unofficially) named community could validly be included, even though there are thousands (millions?) around the planet. Joe Multitude from NY is not notable, even if his family loves him, unless there is more interesting material to mention than his early eruption of his lower left wisdom tooth. Nor would his garage rock group be notable if it never has performed. So, what makes for a sufficiently notable product? The fact that the purveyor would like a mention? Hardly. The fact that it is intrinsically interesting? Wellll... That is a hazardous concept at best and depends largely on the skills and commitments of the editor. The fact that mere mention of it creates horripilations? That would slim WP down to a page or so at a stroke, and lose all notability. How about the fact that the product is, or once was, well known and people in many regions might hear of it or see it mentioned in a film or book and wonder what the word meant, or what the object is for? Eating? Crop protection? Medicine? Now, where might he go to find out? Newspapers? G..gle? A dictionary? I reckon that is exactly the kind of notability for a product that has been around long enough to be commonly recognisable in some countries. It doesn't have to be a Hoover or a Xerox or even a Marmite. Someone just needs to know something without going on a long hunt. I don't know this product, but it seem to me to qualify. JonRichfield (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources do explicitly say "invented". Are there other sources, using another word such as "created" or "designed" ? WarKosign 09:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
These categories are a nuisance. They're spam and sock magnets. Their sourcing is awful. In particular there's a problem for sources stating "This <brand of invention> was invented <here>" and editors then extending that to mean "<conceptual invention> was first made by <brand of invention>", which is totally unsourced. As <conceptual invention> conveys notability, but <brand of invention> does not, that's also a problem for WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) No, "invented" seems less optimal than "created" or "developed." Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) "Developed" as used in the article now sounds better than "invented" to my ear. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No. (Summoned by bot): Use developed, for reasons given by others. Also, the link to "dehydrated vegetables" went to the article on dehydration in humans and I changed it to Food drying. Roches (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vegeta (condiment). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)