|WikiProject Food and drink||(Rated Template-class)|
This is beautiful. Marnanel 04:40, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. It is inspired by Modèle:Serie cuisine. On the French Wikipedia, they had this article series box for a long time already. Lupo 07:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Could we try to hash out some sort of guideline for what should be included under "National Cuisines"? Some possibilities:
- Ad-hoc; whatever people care to add (ie, no guidelines)
- Every existing article on a national cuisine
- Just the "Big Four" (as defined by Iron Chef - ok, this is a little silly) : French, Italian, Chinese, Japanese
- Get rid of the section altogether, since inclusion or exclusion from it is something of a POV-type choice
Choices 1 and 2 worry me a little bit regarding the size of the template. I guess it isn't a big deal to have tall box like this, but I still have this feeling that this template is a guest on the pages that include it and should behave itself...
- 4) is the only reasonable choice IMHO. Choices 1 and 2 will eventually even out as editors continue to add their own national cuisines. 3) is too limited. The smaller and more focused the template, the better. Another idea would be to completely get rid of grouping them by location, but by cultures (which would take care of the Jewish cuisine). Sortan 23:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Generic Cuisine Photo
In my opinion It would better serve the encyclopedia to have a picture of the food whos page this template is on, in the template its self. This would follow with the other info boxes that have room for a different picture depending on the artical. I also find it useful to be able to quickly see what this 'thing' (whatever the artical is on) looks like. Comments? -Fcb981 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think we should try to avoid including this template in articles that aren't actually linked from it. The idea of having images that can be switched from one article to another is a pretty neat one, but it does have the downside of making that image excessively small. Either that or making the template too large. So many other projects are crapping up their best articles by insisting on truly horrendous monsters of templates that remind one more of editorial cuckoo chicks than helpful navigation aides, needlessly hogging the most prominent part of articles.
- For any article that isn't actually linked in the template I think we should instead use a horizontal layout that goes at the bottom of the page. After all, the first impression of the article should be focused on the actual article topic, not a truckload of related links; that's something that should really come after one has read (or even just glanced) through the article itself.
- Peter Isotalo 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Editing this template
Is there anyone willing to make this template foldible or collapsible? I think this template seems useless and takes too much space on an introductory paragraph of every cuisine articles by nationality. ---- Appletrees (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- A better solution might be to remove it from articles that aren't actually linked from the template.
- Peter Isotalo 00:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I still think the template is useless and prevents each national cuisine from being representative. You suggest I have to remove the tool from irrelevant articles instead of requesting it foldible here, but I don't think i can remove it from Asian cuisine articles at all. If I do so, members of Project Food and Drink would not happy about my opinion and would revert the edit.
One of Project Food and Drink member switched the order on Korean cuisine as (s)he pushed that the template placed first. The template is just a tool to aid, and not to be dominated on articles.
I wish someone to edit the template foldible. If someone want to jump to other cuisine after s/he see an article, the person can click and spread the template and go as s/he wishes. --Appletrees (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you should bring this up at the project talkpage instead. The actions of one member doesn't necessarily represent that of the entire projects.
- Peter Isotalo 10:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
What if the template were made horizontal as you suggested in the above conversation Peter? I had suggested this awhile ago somewhere else and got slammed by a number of editors, but currently Appletrees and some others are "discussing" on the Korean cuisine article this same issue. By placing it horizontal at the bottom of articles, this gives the ability for users to use the navigability of the template and then allows a "representative" picture of the cuisine at the top right of the article.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 14:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- If the choice is between people bickering over which cuisine articles to include it in and going for a horizontal design, I definitely prefer the latter. Using that space for a lead pic relevant to the individual articles is also a very strong argument for the horizontal option.
- Peter Isotalo 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was just making it the color the other template had, do you think the purple color is better?--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The navbox was missing all of the cuisines of Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, Pacific islands, etc), which do not fall under any other region currently linked. This seemed like a *major* oversight, so I've added it as a region. BookhouseBoy (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok but a but dusappointing that it only goes to a Category page... --BozMo talk 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Food or dishes?
There has been a bit of a revert-contest whether the template should cover general foods or types of dishes. I think the former is more advisable since it allows more entries and can over both basic staples and basic dishes.
I think the term "Type of Dish" is more helpful for this template because the term "food" is extremely general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taowind (talk • contribs) 09:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking the choice of food in this template was a bit odd. Some are fairly general like sauce and dessert; others are more specific like noodle which is a particular sort of pasta and pizza which is a specific bread product. Why not curry, which is more general? And cassava, sweet potato and yam might be better as separate entries rather than unde the cadre of ground provisions.
I thought it would be best to turn the current 'food' section into subsections:'sorts of food' which would include the most general like meat and fruit, 'carbohydrate staples' which would include the likes of bread and rice and 'types of preparation' like dip and sauce as well as 'courses' which would take dessert and have main course among others added to it. Munci (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- WP:CLN. (And whilst it's fine to request input for an AfD (eg. Outline of cuisines), it's not good practice to delete links to an article whilst it's under discussion. Using 'scarequotes' is also not helpful.) –Quiddity (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- WP:CLN --> ctrl-f --> 'outline' -- 0 results. So, again, what exactly is the utility of, on a template, including a link to a page that... lists everything you just saw on the template, which also appears at the bottom of this new redundant page you have just clicked through to. The Potato Hose ↘ 20:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Distinction between regional and ethnic cuisines
Bengali cuisine, for example, is placed under regional cuisine, but Punjabi cuisine is placed under ethnic/religious group cuisine. The regional cuisine section mostly contains very large regions (such as Latin America), making Bengal seem out of place; and the ethnic/religious group section lists cuisine that doesn't necessarily have a strict geographic association (such as Jewish or Buddhist), which makes Punjab (and possibly a few others) seem out of place. I think it would be good to figure out a more suitable categorization system for the template. Secondplanet (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've moved a couple of cuisines into the 'Ethnic and Religious' section:
Hi, sorry to be an anonymous scrub, but I just wanted to note something sort of related to this. Why is American and Spanish cuisine broken down into to so many sub groups but, for instance, Chinese is followed only by (Tibetan). Wouldn't it be reasonable for it to have comparable breakdown, such as Sichuan, Cantonese, Hunan, and other dominant styles? Italian also has quite many notable, distinct regional styles. I understand this can't be done for every single granular regional difference, but those which have widespread recognition, like the cuisines of specific regions that have academic or popular attention in countries outside their own national origin. Just thought I'd note. Have a great day! 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)