Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Bourbon Ball Article

Hi there. Can someone with experience in this area please refer to the previous edits on the bourbon ball article and my talk page? There is someone who wishes to dispute the history of the bourbon ball. He seems to have a credible source, but I need someone over at Project F&D to check it out. Thanks, --Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 04:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You both should start adding independent, reliable sources first. Without that, no one can judge who is right and who is wrong. The Banner _talk 13:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. However, the user purports that his information is in fact, credible. Whether that is true or not, I can not judge for myself. I would rather have someone experienced in food look at this. Thanks for all your help. --Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 13:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Chinese chives (kow choi)

The naming of Garlic chives is up for discussion, see talk:Garlic chives -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Michelin Guide starred chefs

Category:Michelin Guide starred chefs is up for deletion. You can give your opinion here. The Banner _talk 11:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Organic food

Much to my surprise, sources for the article Organic food have to satisfy WP:MEDRS. Recently I added a some text, based on a agricultural journal, only to see it removed due to it not being indexed by Medline. The guy doing this operates quite aggressive, so I need more people to check this article, as I think it is not neutral and hijacked. The Banner _talk 02:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Your input please here: Talk:Organic food#WP:MEDRS The Banner _talk 10:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:CANVASS considering your completely non-neutral summary. The issue is that the health section where medical claims are made should use MEDRS, and your journal article you cherry picked was criticized by those citing it. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope you have been reading it too... The Banner _talk 17:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue you raise may be an important one, The Banner, but the article concerned may not be an ideal test case. I say this because, although it is in a highly respected journal which has no reason to be in Medline (and it would be quite unfair to exclude a reference to it just on those grounds) the article -- to judge from the abstract -- makes a bold health claim on which we probably shouldn't trust a non-medical source. Andrew Dalby 13:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It has by now moved on the the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Not that I believe that it will help a thing, but why should I oppose a try at DRN... The Banner _talk 17:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Query about Thai cuisine article

Hi there, I see Wikipedia has an article on Thai cuisine. My query is whether this should go in the article called "East Asian cuisine" which other oriential cuisines such as Chinese or Japanese cuisine are members of? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, having another look at the article, I see it is in a category called "Thai cuisine", which in turn is in a category called "Southeast Asian cuisine" - which may be a better category for it. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Shrimp & List of shrimp dishes

There is a discussion about a split of the article Shrimp (food) and list of shrimp dishes here. Please chime in with any opinions. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Chili burger merge to Chili con carne or Hamburger

G'day WP Food & Drink. I thought I'd give you the courtesy of letting you know that I have started a merger proposal of chili burger to chili con carne. Being that both articles are nominally under your support, I thought that you might like to participate. The discussion is at Talk:Chili con carne#Merger proposal (see below). Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

One of your members suggested that Hamburger might be the better target, so I have redone the proposal at Talk:Chili burger#merger proposal to allow this to happen. Please accept my apologies if it seemed that I was advocating one solution over another. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:SPIRITS regarding distillery naming conventions

Hi there WP:FOOD,

There's currently a discussion going on at WT:SPIRITS#Distillery naming conventions regarding the naming conventions of Whisky distilleries. We'd appreciate a wider range of editors to give an opinion on the matter at hand. Cheers Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Tofu skin

Tofu skin is up for renaming to "yuba" -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Buttered toast phenomenon

Hi, would someone be able to take a look at this article? Thanks -- YPNYPN 02:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured portal review

Portal:Wine has been nominated for a featured portal review and may lose its status as a featured portal. Reviewers' concerns are set out here. Please leave your comments (which can include "keep" or "delist") and help the portal to be of featured quality. The instructions for the review process are here. --ELEKHH^T 22:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sugar drink at Articles for Improvement.

Dear members of the Food and drink WikiProject. This notification is sent from the Articles for Improvement team to let you know that the article Sugar drink, which has been tagged as part of the project, has been selected to receive community improvement. Users and members of the project that are willing to help, may do so in the article's entry on the Articles for Improvement page.
Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 22:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is pure garbage, it should be deleted or merged to soft drink. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. -Kai445 (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The merge discussion is here. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'll close the AFI discussion then. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Request some extra eyes...

I am in a bit of a conflict with someone about the article Aan de Poel. He seems to think that it is POV to name a restaurant with TWO Michelin stars a quality restaurant. Besides that, he demand summaries from the Dutch sources because he can't read them. I have pointed him at Google Translate.

Unfortunately, my sense of humour is now suffering and before I come to a meltdown, I asked assistance to see who is right and who is wrong. The Banner talk 20:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Pyrope, you were complaining about the notability of Michelin starred restaurants. Not about puffery and POV. The Banner talk 22:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but there is a link. You do tend to overplay a restaurant's notability, even in the face of a complete lack of sources that satisfy WP:GNG. Your POV, unsupported by any actual evidence, is that simply holding a Michelin star is enough to confer notability. It doesn't matter how many run-of-the-mill reviews and directory inclusions you choose to cite, it doesn't make up for the complete lack of any substantial, significant, and independent coverage of the restaurant in the mainstream media. You continue to push your POV by inserting peacock terms that imply notability, such as using "quality" with no justification or substantiation, and this together with accusing another editor of vandalism when all they did was to request a citation for one a piece of information puts you firmly in the wrong. I do agree that some of their edits were causing more problems than they solved, but you need to up the quality of your own edits before you start complaining about other people's behaviour. Pyrope 23:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nah, if my work is so rotten, why don't you nominate it for AfD? The Banner talk 00:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Because arguing with you is slightly less appealing than cleaning out a cesspit with my bare tongue. Pyrope 00:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Banner talk 00:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If you were any good at debating issues you might be justified in a smiley, but previous experience shows that you rely on your own prejudices and suppositions, and when asked to provide evidence of your claims you fall back on whining and xenophobic abuse. Not exactly something to be proud of. Pyrope 00:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Can I make you happy by (slowly) replacing "quality restaurant"" by "fine dining restaurant"? The Banner talk 00:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Or a bit quicker when somebody is able to make a botrun

Fine dining is certainly more neutral, it is indeed a start. You still need to work on finding proper notability indicators for many of you articles though, but we have been down that argument before, haven't we? In relation to this, see below. Pyrope 00:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, a majority seems to think that Michelin stars are a clear sign of notability as soon as there are proper sources available. Unfortunately, you belong to the minority. But I am unwilling to add the yearly wave of newspaper and magazine articles to the articles. I have the idea that one is enough. The Banner talk 01:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

not a single GNG compliant source seems to exist ??? Interesting! You dismiss all present sources in Aan de Poel? Can you explain that? The Banner talk 01:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Before you start: I don't consider the Michelin Guide alone as a conformation of notability. The Guide however is the starting point for my research. Reviews, no matter who publishes it, are in my opinion no arguments for notability.

I do use primary sources as the Michelin Guide, but only as support for secondary sources.

And I do use reviews as source, mainly to confirm names of (historical) chefs or date of establishment.

The Banner talk 01:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing information is a different issue to establishing notability. While a primary or insignificant source may be useful for verifying a fact (depending on the fact) they are insufficient to establish notability. This is why we have two separate pages at WP:V and WP:GNG. Misunderstanding this distinction may the root of your problem. Pyrope 17:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It is your disliking of Michelin starred restaurants that is the problem, Pyrope. If the articles are not properly sourced or fail to be notable, you should nominated them for deletion. Not run around like a Wikipedia-version of Don Quixote. The Banner talk 20:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

See, this is why toilet bowl licking seems more preferable to discussing things with you. You just can't help yourself but introduce personal attacks. I have nothing against the Michelin guide or restaurants contained therin, I've used the guide and eaten at a number of starred establishments, but I don't fetishise the thing and assume that all it contains is made of gold. Once we have nailed down the status of Michelin and its fallacious inheritable notability (something that I see you have now agreed to on the WP:ORG page) it is certainly a good idea to take a look at most of your output as your standards appear to be quite low. However, the root of this particular cancer is the false claim at WP:ORG that Michelin inclusion imparts notability. To continue the oncological analogy, you don't start to treat the metastatic masses until you have tackled the primary tumour. Pyrope 21:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please get your PAs to yourself? The Banner talk 22:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Spurious accusations mirroring the accusations against yourself, that's actually quite funny. Pyrope 23:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Michelin notability

With reference to the above discussion, I have raised a query at WP:ORG. Please do contribute. Pyrope 00:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Perennial The Banner talk 13:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of burrito content RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Burrito#Request for comment. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Organic Milk

Request for comments at Talk:Organic_milk#RFC The Banner talk 03:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To have a page for each product or not have one for liquor brand labels

Patron Spirits makes the famous Patron tequila, as well as Ultimat vodka among a few other things. I noticed that both products have its own page. I was thinking maybe one should be made into a page about the company, and the products added within the product since they only offer a few products. What's the right approach in this project? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk to the the drunkards over at WP:Spirits, they have a better idea regarding liquors. As a note, there is precedence regarding this in the varieties of Coke and varieties of Pepsi.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sopa teologa

This article has been unreferenced and tagged for notability for 5 years. Can anyone help? Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Prawn cracker move

I imagine Articles alerts will pick this up anyway, but given the various national Wproject banners, probably worthwhile to have some food project input too Talk:Krupuk. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Organizing the Beverages Task Force

I'm a bit confused by the organization of the Beverages Task Force. I understand that it is the consolidation of several defunct WikiProjects, but the way they were merged was inconsistent, with some of those old projects and their talk pages still functioning in some capacity. The page for the Beverages Task Force features what appears to be a navigation system with three options: "Soft drinks", "Mixed drinks", and "Coffee and Tea." "Soft drinks" has no link. "Mixed drinks" links to what appears to be the parent's navigation system grafted over an historical page that still refers to itself as "WikiProject Mixed Drinks", although the talk page includes a notice that discussions should take place on the Beverages Task Force talk page. "Coffee and Tea" links to a task force within a task force (is that even possible?) and continues to have its own talk page despite there being no new comments in over a year. If you look at the talk page for the Beverages Task Force, there is a collection of links to archives for the defunct projects covering Mixed Drinks, Soft Drinks, Coca-Cola, and two red links for the Coffee and Tea archives.

Is the Beverages Task Force supposed to be a single entity or is it just an umbrella for multiple beverage-related task forces? Should the mixed drink and coffee/tea pages be marked "historical" or can we just ditch them entirely? If the mixed drink and coffee/tea pages are kept, should the pages for WikiProject Soft Drinks and Coca-Cola be resurrected for their historical value? What can be done to make the navigation for these pages more intuitive and tie all the loose ends back together? –Mabeenot (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The task force is messed up. I never finished merging all of the stuff together. The task force is supposed to be broken up into three work groups. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What is needed to finish dividing the Beverages Task Force in to the three work groups? OnTheGas (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and recreated the soft drink task force's page using the format of the mixed drink task force and some archived material from the old soft drink project. It needs to be fleshed out and the other task forces need a lot of cleanup. The coffee and tea project in particular is very different from the other two task forces. –Mabeenot (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

Hello, Please note that Agribusiness, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

Hello, Please note that List of alcoholic beverages, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

Hello, Please note that Pepperoni, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

Query on the category which is called "Lists of Foods"

I have a query about the category called "Lists of Foods". Why does this include the article on the Edible_mushroom - surely this is an article rather than a list? I think it can be removed from the list, and my other queries would be on the talk page of this category. I shall be appreciative it if any one could go to this category and tidy it up. I apologise if I have given this question before - I did not rummage through all the archives! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)