Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Food article collaboration

I've started a collaboration page for food articles, located at User:Northamerica1000/Food articles. All editors in good standing should feel free to contribute there and work together to improve food-related articles. Check it out! Northamerica1000(talk) 21:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

we already have one of those... It hasn't been used for a while, you can just do that work there. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Meijiawu.jpg

File:Meijiawu.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Files up for deletion

File:Liangpi.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Logenmeyer.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Lobster Platter.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

File:LebaneseArak.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Lean fresh cheese.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Le Creuset1.jpeg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

file:Larossa.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Book

I have bought a copy of this book:

Laura Halpin Rinsky; Glenn Rinsky (2009). The Pastry Chef's Companion: A Comprehensive Resource Guide for the Baking and Pastry Professional. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-470-00955-1. OCLC 173182689.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I'm pretty happy with it. If you need a quick check for a definition of anything pastry-related and can't see what you need through Google Books' preview, then feel free to leave a note at my user talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal~ WikiProject Breakfast

i have a proposal for you all. I would like to create a WikiProject Breakfast, a division of WikiProject Food and drink. This WikiProject would cover the following articles, as well as similar articles and categories (more coverage to come):

Again, there would be thousands of more articles included in this WikiProject. They could also be in both WikiProject Food and drink and WikiProject Breakfast. WikiProject Breakfast would be a division of WikiProject Food and drink. I think that this addition is highly necessary.

How would I go about creating this, and do you know where the basic template is located (eg., link to it)? Feel free to voice your opinion, and comments below. Coolboygcp (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are some templates that may help out: Category:Generic WikiProject templates. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the term you are look for is task force. This sounds like a good idea to me. The main task force page would likely be titled Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Breakfast task force. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
A good idea, and I'd do it as a WikiProject with this project as it's parent project, because people don't contribute to task forces much nowadays, as evidenced per (see revision histories):
—Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
You have a point there. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I will make it into a WikiProject. Thank yo for your suggestions, keep them coming! Coolboygcp (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that this will not work, those task forces were all once freestanding WikiProjects that were closed and down merged to this project because of lack of activity. They were moved here after it was clear that these types of projects were not going to continue. Feel free to start the project if you wish, I wish you bonne chance. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

It has been created...

Hello, WikiProject Food and drink.

You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


Help with an article?

Hi guys! This is one of three places I'm asking for help on an article for a Chinese snack called the Airplane olive. It's sort of hard finding coverage in reliable sources, as there really isn't a completely official name in English. Does anyone here speak Chinese that could look for coverage in Chinese language sources? I've done a search with Google translate, but that's incredibly limiting as far as what I can find and how far I can search. What little I can find does seem to show that it's popular, but I know that we would still need RS to back this claim up. I've asked for help at the Hong Kong and China WPs, but I wanted to ask here as well in order to get as many sets of eyes on the page as I can. I just want to make sure that I give it a fair shake before putting it up for AfD or a PROD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for input

Hello!

I spent a great portion of my day yesterday skimming medical journals for things related to skin and olive oil (talk). I wrote up a neutral, science-based post and attempted to insert my work there, but a heavy deletionist came through and removed a large portion of it, abusing WP:SPAM and WP:MEDRS to justify deletion. (S)he is arguably in violation of WP:OWN and WP:WORLDVIEW, as this user attempts to impose FDA-level standards on Wikipedia. I would appreciate a third party's opinion. The content I attempted to add can be found here in its entirety. - Sweet Nightmares 20:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability question

Is there a notability guideline for chefs sous chefs and the like or is it just GNG? Ryan Vesey 20:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends on whether they are alive or not. You would follow WP:BLP if they were alive and the general guidelines of WP:Notability (people) if they were dead. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It's probably welcome to compile a list of chef and sous chef AfD's, and see if you can distill any rules of thumb that can be codified as guidelines. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_8#Category:Breakfast_beverages

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_8#Category:Breakfast_beverages. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC) This discussion may be of particular interest to the currently forming "Breakfast" task force


Chocolate

I am fascinated with the possible creation of a Chocolate Task Force. I have no clue how to start it, but if someone creates a template, based on the Cheese Task Force, I would be happy to populate the task force and work on it in other ways. there are up to 867 articles (some are doubly categorized, but there must be at least 500 related pages), so its manageable and well defined. anyone else interested?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Desserts task force covers this subject. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Chocolate is a dessert?
The subject interests me, Mercurywoodrose, but I don't work much on the English Wikipedia these days, so you'd better not rely on me except for distant encouragement :) Andrew Dalby 08:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
exactly, chocolate is not always a dessert, but foods which contain chocolate are ALWAYS chocolate related. I'm not particularly interested in the dessert/breakfast task forces, as for me the inclusion criteria are too vague for my tastes (some articles are clearly related, others might be: jook is eaten in china for breakfast: should rice be in the breakfast task force, and the dessert task force for rice pudding? you get what im saying). i see the value of a task force by major food as more interesting (not better, just appealing to me). Of course, if noone else wants to, theres no way i would want to be the only person doing this (i actually AM a ridiculously active member of the San Francisco Bay Area task force, and the only editor of the associated portal, which became moribund almost immediately after its creation)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor point on categories

on the main page, it shows the category trees for Category:Foods, and the tree for Category:Beverages. Doesnt that leave out the broader tree starting at Category:Food and drink, or even Category:Gastronomy? Don't those articles fall under this project as well? or is this more narrowly defined than i realize?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, here is some history. The Food and Drink WikiProject started life as the Gastronomy WikiProject, so that explains the gastronomy category as we often pair up categories with their related WikiProjects. Gastronomy should be the overall umbrella category which all other related categories should fall. The Gastronomy category should be a structural category with very few or no articles under it (Gastronomy). The next level down categories should include "Food and Drink", "Cuisine" and certain select categories that should also be a structural with few if any articles under them (Food and Drink). The proper structure of these categories should resemble:
  • Gastronomy
    • Foodservice
      • Restaurants
      • Catering
      • Pubs
      • other foodservice related sub-categories
    • Cuisine
    • Food and drink
      • Food
        • Agriculture
        • Food stuffs
        • Meals
        • other food related sub-categories
      • Drink
        • Beer
        • Mixed drinks
        • Soft drinks
        • Spirits
        • Wine
        • Other drink related sub-categories
Now this is not an exact layout as that would take days to properly map out, and the proper structure should be discussed by a wide swath of the Project to get a good idea of what we're talking about and need. The problem we would be dealing with is there is massive overlap, duplication and cross-categorization due to different goals at different times. We need to par down the various categories by eliminating those that have lees than 50 or so articles, merge the duplicates and keep the cross pollination to a minimum. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha. and yes, improving it beyond a few easy fixes here and there would have to be a massive collaborative effort, esp. if a small fix ends up being eliminated anyway due to a larger scale change. I can see why its taking time to do so. I will try to help out when i can, and if i see any potential areas for improvement that could possibly warrant discussion, ill bring them here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Origins of items in standalone lists

A number of standalone lists using Template:Lists of prepared foods have a column for the origin of each food. Generally speaking, the information in these columns is all over the place. Most list a country. Some list several. Others list a city or a specific culinary tradition. What can we do to standardize this and make it more useful for readers? Here are a few different ideas:

  1. Use "Demonym cuisine", where possible. Where this isn't available, use "Cuisine of place". Where this is not possible, link to "Culture of place" or "Demonym people".
  2. Use the most specific location possible, with preference for city or region.
  3. Use the modern-day country that contains the place where this item originated, as is currently the loose standard.

Another question is link style. Using option 1 wouldn't be very pretty, but could be improved upon with a piped link, such as [[Chinese cuisine|China]]. Thoughts? Ibadibam (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If no one has any opinion on this, I'm probably going to begin making changes to our list articles using option 1 above, sometime next week. Ibadibam (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Milton S. Hershey c1915.jpg

File:Milton S. Hershey c1915.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Coffee portal

Portal:Coffee is now actually useful, and is linked at a few articles. I may not do more work, but i brought it "up to code" so to speak. anyone interested, go ahead.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that this portal was created w/o discussion with the food and drink/beverage task forces. I will understand if its deleted, but i would like to suggest that its not a bad subject for a portal, even if the project was merged into beverages. however, i also have strong feeling about moribund portals, and really dont like them, so if there isnt a huge interest in maintaining it at a high level of quality, i would argue for deletion. (i just wish i hadnt done this work without realizing it was not ever really approved! I mean, coffee is a big deal, right?) i wish that we didnt have so many moribund portals and projects.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Coffee

Portal:Coffee has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Coffee and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Coffee during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Articles for Deletion

I happened to bump into Vatican cuisine which is up for deletion. I added this wikiproj banner to its talk page and came here to see how the alert system works. Does it? - if so where is it?

Thanks. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You'll find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink#Article alerts. Ibadibam (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for replying, Ibadibam. Can you tell me if the alerts on this WikiProject are updated automatically or does someone have to insert the entries? I ask because I noticed today that Category:Cuisine of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is proposed for deletion but is not in the alerts. Thanks in advance, 13:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
They're updated automatically, but that Pittsburgh cat wasn't on the list because it wasn't tagged with the food and drink template. Now that I've added it, it should show up on the alerts list's next update cycle. Ibadibam (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Who wants to help take Bread to GA (and later FA)?

Title says it all really. Who's interested? The Potato Hose ↘ 22:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

Can I suggest that your Project Group also looks after another article - that on Grace_(prayer), as this is relevant to mealtime prayers? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've added it. Ibadibam (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Mortar

The usage of mortar is under discussion, see talk:Mortar -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Cuisine by city categories

Several categories for cuisine by city are up for deletion - see here if you'd like to weigh in: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_10#Cuisine_of.... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

BLT cocktail

BLT cocktail is undergoing a deletion discussion about whether to delete the article from Wikipedia.

Please see ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BLT cocktail.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Enlarge the article statistics section

Proposal withdrawn at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that the article statistics box be enlarged. Its point size has been so tiny in such fine print that nobody likely uses it, and instead just skim over it since it's barely readable at this point size. I have attempted to enlarge it, but User:Jerem43 continues to revert without discussing the matter. I support enlarging it so people can actually read the contents there. This is conducive to promoting contributions to Wikipedia articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This template is not a WP:Food project template, it is a WP wide template designed for use in multiple WikiProjects. As such, your discussion is inappropriate for listing here, the discussion belongs on the template page, not here. I have notified you on your talk page, asked you to discuss it where it is appropriate to discuss and asked you to notify the projects who use the template that you wish to make changes and invite them to discuss it on the template's talk page.
This is not the proper forum. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
This is certainly a proper forum. A talk page doesn't even exist for the template as of the time of this post (see Template talk:Project assessments). How does keeping the point size for the table basically unreadable help the encyclopedia? It doesn't. In the past you rallied against the WP:FOOD page having edit links, stating that the page should not be easy for people to contribute to. I'm concerned, because it appears that this may be your philosophy in other areas, such as favoring graphic layout that is tiny, which can prevent contributions from occurring. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you just created a talk page for the template, which is a good idea (link: Template talk:Project assessments). Perhaps I'll simply reformat the article statistics box just for this project. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Or you could engage in the discussion there and look at my proposal, which would satisfy your desire to make changes. Off to work, no discussion for me for the next 12 hours! --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Jerem43 is correct; this template is used hundreds of times across the project, by all (I think?) Wikiprojects. A minor local discussion here cannot--and should not!--have an effect on everyone else using the template. Changing it here would be the same as us changing {{cn}} here.  The Potato Hose ↘ 17:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
North, Then you create the talk page, like I did. Also, this is not the correct forum because the template does not "belong" to this project, as I stated. It is a template that is designed to use and is being used in multiple WikiProjects, as such the proposed changes discussion belongs with the template, not in an unrelated forum. And leave my comments alone please - you don't edit or modify other peoples posts, it is bad etiquette--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I only moved your post below my introduction after creating this thread. The way you posted above my thread (diff) was misleading, as though if you created the thread. It's customary to post below other's posts, not above them. I'm surprised that you weren't aware of this. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As a separate point, I don't think the article assessment tables are actually useful anymore. Try clicking on any of the links; the service has been disabled at the Toolserver. I've been having to manually use the category intersection tool in order to find certain articles. I'm not sure if this is related to the pending Toolserver migration to the WMFlabs or not.
(And as a side note, Northamerica1000, could you perhaps take a few extra seconds to preview and double-check what you want to write before hitting save? I've edit-conflicted with you three four five six times trying to reply here)  The Potato Hose ↘ 17:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The Toolserver is temporarily down, and currently displays the notice "Service temporarily disabled". It isn't down permanently, and they are definitely useful, at least in my opinion. I had to copy edit my comments above, hence the ecs. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The Toolserver as a whole is not down. This specific tool is. And yes I know you had to copyedit/add to your comments above... that's why I am asking you, in a friendly way, to take a few more seconds looking at the preview before hitting save. Everyone hates ec's, right? :)  The Potato Hose ↘ 18:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Update

A different approach

  • Support – (as proposer) utilizing the above custom template for this project, to promote contributions to the encyclopedia and articles within this project's scope. Using a normal point size improves the project's main page, because the data is easily read with this formatting. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm honestly puzzled as to why you are !voting on something which isn't even a proposal. It's sort of obvious you support the idea since you created the page in question, so that's kind of redundant. We understand what your goals are. A discussion has been started in the correct venue to make the change you want to make. Trying to do the same thing several different ways is carrying the appearance of forum-shopping. I doubt that is your goal, but the appearance is there. So maybe it would be a good idea to take a step back and let the discussion go on? On top of that, you're ignoring the pretty basic fact that the assessment tables are currently useless; the Toolserver service has been disabled. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of good reasons to expend any energy on fixing what you perceive as broken when the thing you are fixing isn't useful to anyone and there is (so far; I have asked the bot owners for input) no idea of when it will be useful again.  The Potato Hose ↘ 18:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
How about you not make changes to this template anymore and look at how the whole project page is designed. The issue here is that you do not understand how the page is laid out, why it is laid out the way it is and why things are done the way they were - and never have. The main page is designed to be a gateway to the project and not as the primary workspace location, and this particular section (like all the others) is only designed to be a quick view of the statistics. IT IS NOT DESIGNED TO BE THE PRIMARY LOCATION FOR THIS INFORMATION. (yes it is all capitals and yes it is intended as it is.)
The primary page where this information is located is at WP:FDA, where you will find a full size version of this table and all related information as such. That is why there is a link right below the table. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's why I created a page that could be used just for this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Project right panel. All this entails is enlarging the point size of the article statistics box so it's in a normal font size: more easily usable. This is the format that almost all Wikiprojects use on their main pages. Pretty basic really. Readable information that is instantly available is superior compared to having to click-through to another page to read it. I've included it at right for people to view. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 03:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Struck part of my comment above, removed table for formatting purposes in withdrawing this proposal. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
If, as you claim to believe, this is a basic usability issue, then it should be dealt with on a Wikipedia-wide basis and not just here. So deal with it at the appropriate venue. If, on the other hand, you're on some quixotic quest to change things just for this project, then it must be dealt with only here. Pick one. You cannot logically have both. Beyond that, everything that Jerem43 (talk · contribs) said, and then some. You are, as I've already said, careening about like a bull in a china shop with nary a thought for how you are affecting other people or wasting our time. — The Potato Hose 05:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Piccadilly Emergency Service.jpg

image:Piccadilly Emergency Service.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Project page changes

I just made some changes to the main project page, these are made with certain goals in mind:

  1. The changes have simplified the code of the page, with most data now transcluded the code is much cleaner and easier to repair if it is accidentally modified. Also, I have repaired some copy and paste mistakes in the code.
  2. The main page is not designed to be the collaboration point, it is the gateway to the project (just like the Wikipedia Main page) and is not designed to be edited. I have moved information that was on it to various sub-pages.
  3. The main page has intricate code and it is too easy to mess the whole thing up with an errant edit, so I have re-added the "NOEDITSECTION" magic word back on to the page. This magic button removes the [edit] link to prevent such edits. This also ties into the previous move of information to sub pages.
  4. In order to get to these sub pages I have added a couple of templates into the code-
    1. The first is {{Clickable button}} - on those places we need members to quickly access the sub page, there is now a button at the top of the section that links right to the page in question.
    2. The second is {{tnavbar}} - on pages that people do not need to access as much, it adds the "V•T•E" bar underneath the section that allows people to view the page, edit the page, or go to the talk page. This template is on all transcluded boxes.
  5. In order to prevent the page from becoming a massive wall of text which has the possibility to overwhelm contributors, I have made some structural changes:
    1. I have limited the size of the scroll boxes to the sub-pages to 250px high, this prevents the page from being overwhelmed by massive lists of data. This is larger than the previous 155pt high size format, and is a good compromise between having all information fully duplicated on the main page and a simple summary that only includes some data. The data can be fully accessed using the scroll-bar or contributors can use the provided links to go to the full pages with all included information that is not included in the main page transclusion (Instructions and guidelines are omitted in the transclusion because they would clog the main page with unrelated information).
    2. The text in the boxes is set to 90% of the main page text. The page is in effect a large table that has a ton of info, so I minimize the font to make the page easier to access. There is virtually no difference in text size between the main page and the transcluded section, 12pt vs 11pt. This is inline with the MoS standards on text formatting.
  6. I am trying to standardize the formatt of the sub-pages as well, to insure a common layout and design for each page.

While I understand the goal is collaboration, the idea is to direct our participants to the proper pages where the collaboration occurs. Further, these changes are fully inline with the Manual of Style and accessibility standards of Wikipedia. I will be making some more changes over the next few days to further these goals. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Not bad. One concern though is that the scroll box in the New articles section hides part of the new articles. I prefer that they're all present on the page, so they can all be viewed at once, and at a normal point size for easier readability. This encourages contributions. I've removed the New articles scroll box for the time being and directly transcluded the new articles page, (while retaining the edit button), pending further discussion. Also, the point sizes at 90% in the scroll boxes are rather small, so I've changed them to 98%, so they're not skimmed over by readers due to small print. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that my minor layout changes were immediately reverted without any discussion about them. User:Jerem43 made some bold changes, I reverted a few of them, and then the next step is to discuss. See also WP:BRD. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't throw acronyms at me, I understand policy a lot better than you. I have already discussed these points and you need to establish policy based arguments that can bolster your point of view. WP:I don't like it is not a valid point in which to base your arguments, try looking up the various standards we have established regarding accessibility which I have been adhering to, unlike you.
Wikipedia underlying structure is about standards, and I have tried to maintain those when working on this page. I utilize standard templates, sizing and structures that have been established here. Your changes ignore those standards in favor of your personal preferences. My suggestion to you would be to update your account preferences to reflect your personal style tastes. Changing the page around because you do not agree with the standards of Wikipedia is inappropriate.
These are standard sectional and font sizing used all over Wikipedia, and these meet the standard of accessibility established here on Wikipedia by others who are much more knowledgeable than you or me. Additionally, these sizings are used all over the main Wikipedia page, and are fine there, so why are they unacceptable here - besides your personal tastes?
Also, as I stated before, this is a gateway and not the entirety of all of the site. If you want more visibility of the box, re-size the box, not restore the transcluded information. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Can people please settle down and discuss whatever the dispute is calmly? Getting mad never helps anyone. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been discussing calmly the entire time. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You have been barely discussing the issue, you need to address the points I have raised by countering them with some sort of policy based standard. You have just been saying you do not like the changes. And if my tone is a little harsh, please forgive me, I severely dislike the "I don't like it" line of reasoning. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Fact is, though, is that after spot checking projects listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory, it appears that the vast majority of (but not all) Wikiprojects use standard point sizes. Also notice how Template:WikiProject uses standard point sizes. Perhaps if you could state why you seem to prefer small point sizes it would help to clarify your stance regarding this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The size variation is minor, it is the difference between 12 and 11 point, which is minor and meet the standards of accessibility and font sizing. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but how does the 90% font size enhance the page? Northamerica1000(talk) 22:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Did you read WP:FONTSIZE?
  • The page is in effect a large table that has a ton of info, so I minimize the font to make the page easier to access.
  • The provided links give people the chance to look at the fully sized pages.
  • I keep the window boxes to a set size because the page will become a massive wall of text that will discourage people from using it to its fullest.
  • As I stated in other discussions, the smaller sections are designed to only be quick links into the pertinent section and not the actual information.
Look at the article alerts section, it easily takes up a third of the entire page. I am trying to avoid that real issue with the other sections. That is why I have done what I have done.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for providing your perspective. Yes, I read both links you provided. I don't perceive the page as a large table; it's a project page with sections. Personally, I view normal font sizes as conducive toward easier readability, which may encourage article contributions. Also, everything is now compressed into boxes, and the entries are all squished tightly together, like compartmentalized walls of text. My guess is that people will sometimes just skim right over them. At any rate, we disagree about this matter, so we may have to agree to disagree. At the very least, I think standard point size for the new articles section would be an improvement. Perhaps others will chime in here with opinions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I am in agreement with Jerem43. Northamerica1000, consider this a warning (I DGAF about templated warnings): you are becoming disruptive on this page, and others. You are failing to respond to points people are making towards you. You are continuing to make rash edits without discussion--when the discussion is ongoing. Stop, or you will be reported to AN/I. I've already said to you that it is clear the things we are saying about how you are acting are not news to you. Start paying attention. — The Potato Hose 03:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I resized a box and performed very minor copy editing to the button areas to clarify their use. Very minor edits. Also, User:Jerem43 above states in regards to boxes on the page "If you want more visibility of the box, re-size the box, not restore the transcluded information." Northamerica1000(talk) 03:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Why did you again immediately revert the box enlargement to the Nominations for Top Level Importance section when Jerem43 and I are both in agreement regarding resizing them to fit content listed therein? Northamerica1000(talk) 03:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Under that line of logic, then you should also remove the resizing that Jerem43 performed to enlarge the box at the New articles section (diff), since it occurred prior to the conclusion of this discussion. Sorry, but this comes across as rather one-sided on your part. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Séralini affair

This article, about controversial experiments on rats claimed to show that GM (Roundup-resistant) maize and Roundup "are extremely toxic", could do with some neutral eyes: it is the subject of heavy editing by SPAs. I had to semi-protect it for a short time this morning because of repeated attempts to blank it as an attack page. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Guava

Guava has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:Guava -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/tli archive

Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/tli archive has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is located here. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Project direction

Hi all. I would like to start a discussion here about this project in general. It's become kind of dormant, there is a huuuuuuuuuuuge backlog of articles which need to be assessed and improved, etc etc. So here's what I am doing and what I would like to do:

  • I am currently notifying everyone listed as active participants, asking them to update whether they are active or inactive within the project
  • I would like us to come together to work out some ways to get rid of the article assessment backlogs
  • I would like to set up some collaboration initiatives, like I dunno, Improve A Stub Week, or Blitz Articles To GA Month, or something
  • It would be cool to do $OTHER_THINGS but I don't know what those $OTHER_THINGS are so hey, suggestions would be great!

— The Potato Hose 18:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Improve a Stub is more likely to garner interest than Blitz to GA in my opinion.
It's not WP:FOOD's fault that so many are disappearing. The reason it's dropping is because the members are! Members come and go but due to the regulation overload and Wikipedia seemingly like a bureaucracy to many along with other non-Wikipedia things we have members leaving en masse. But I digress (I'm in a restaurant as I type this yknow) I'm sure there are things that could be done to up the numbers.

Many see WP as a free for all nowadays, the biggest bit is newbies find out about Wikiprojects themselves. We need to make people aware of WikiProjects like this where almost anyone will be able to work on it, like Food and Drink.

As per earlier about being in a restaurant I'll have to make the rest of this short. The Improve a Stub idea is a good one, I'm on the case for thinking of ideas for the project to do. MM (What's up pup?) - (Chocolate Cakes ◕‿◕) 19:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the improve a stub idea is a good one. There are plenty of food stubs out there and its a good thing to target. Now while restaurants (in particular, well known restaurants) can be improved from web based source and are therefore easier, the real food based articles are quite difficult as the vast majority of online sources will be recipes. For example, I thought a while back that Sausage roll would be easy to expand sufficiently to get to DYK. I failed miserably as whilst I found a couple of sources about the popularity of sausage rolls, I couldn't find anything about the origin - as those are going to be covered in food history books... which aren't really the normal things to find in most libraries. Food subjects are under-represented in quality content. For example, at GA there are 16 restaurant articles, 19 food articles and 20 drink articles. Considering that personally, I've completed nearly 40 Star Trek GAs in the last seven months alone, that rather sums it up. But I think the difficulty of finding sources on a diverse range of topics within a single article is the problem - so perhaps a suggested resource list might be in order, so that project members can share where they find interesting information. Even if its a archive.org book, or an offline book that people might be able to order through their local libraries. Miyagawa (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The trick is to get a critical mass of editors involved. If you'll forgive the pun, I think lists are low-hanging fruit for that purpose. Take List of food preparation utensils as an example: obviously getting it to featured standard would be just as difficult source wise as sausage roll (you would need a comprehensive lead, a history section touching on the different developments within different cultures, etc), but filling individual cells in the table out is a little bit more accessible to the casual editor. —WFC— FL wishlist 20:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Some excellent points above, and I'd love to see more ideas come in. I'm thinking give it a week or so for people to check in (after less than a day, 10% of listed participants have checked in as still active), and then move forward on concrete proposals and projects. Maybe we could even set aside a sort of 'conference day' when as many people as possible can be online and hash out some ideas? — The Potato Hose 03:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll contribute Monday, this whole thing has given me a headache. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The biggest problem is that food articles are hard to get up to higher quality levels because either they're not particularly covered, or they're so well known that everyone's got an opinion. For example, I did a fair amount of work to Pasty, so that it got to good status, but it's a controversial topic due to the passion involved. I do intend to get back to writing about food articles at some point, but I just don't have that much time to work on articles at the moment... so I'm here, but lurking! WormTT(talk) 09:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

My 2¢

Never mind my last post, I gots me some ideas:

Okay, the question is threefold
  1. How do we get this mobile feast a moving again?
  2. What can we do to bring in new blood?
  3. What can we do to generate interest?
Here are some ideas to get moving again
  1. First, lets start the newsletters up again. By getting the word out to the membership, we can keep them abreast of what the hell is going on here. The Military WikiProject has The Bugle to do this, and we can utilize the same system here. I can't do this as I am in school 3/4 time and working full time+. Volunteers?
  2. The Wine WikiProject has a monthly improvement drive designed to attack entire areas of deficiency. They use a template I created to keep track of what is being done by who. We should try that.
  3. Fire up the collaboration project here on WP:Food, that can serve as a focal point for working together.
Here are some ideas on getting new people in
  1. Monitor the new membership rolls, send a welcome and an invite to join.
  2. We need to rework the Project Page, the changes made in the last few months take away from it. It needs to be more welcoming. I'll go into that in more detail later.
What can we do to generate interest?
  1. We should give give recognition to those that do a lot to improve the project:
    1. Wikilove - We need to create a Wikilove template tailored to the project.
    2. The F&D Barnstar - It's there, I know I created it. Give it out people!
    3. Editor of the Week, Month, Fortnight, Millisecond.
  2. WikiAds!
The Project Page

When I redid the page a few years ago, it was set it up with the following structure:

  1. The Header - Self evident.
  2. The Announcement panel - This section is to place announcements and news right up front where it can be seen. It hasn't been really used, and I hold myself responsible. I never advertised it.
  3. The Welcome - This section was designed to give visitors to our little corner of WikiHeaven an idea of what we are, what we do and why we do it. The idea behind it was to lure the little flies into our web with a friendly word. This section has been pared down and is lacks informative content now.
    1. Here is the "Welcome" - Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Welcome
    2. Here is a modified version of the "About" section of the Welcome - Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/About
  4. Membership - This was the next section, giving the contribs the chance to join our little party without burdening them with details and errata to distract from the invite. The location here was deliberate, we (the members involved in the redesign) wanted to avoid distracting the contribs with tons of data and statistics that would overwhelm them.
    1. Assessment Task Force - This essential task force was placed here as well, to try to get contribs to help do this major piece of grunt work.
  5. The Basics - Next up were the basic things that new members can do in the form of a to do list, a tasks list and a collaboration section. Again, the placement of the section was deliberate, designed with KISS-mentality. Not the band, keep it simple gently ease them into the issues that need addressing.
    1. To Do - These are single, one time editing tasks that need to be done and don't require anything beyond basic editing.
    2. Tasks - These are simple, repetitive tasks tasks that need to be done, house keeping.
    3. Current - This is the collaboration section, where we would list ongoing community projects.
  6. The Complexities - The more complex areas were listed here, XfD's, Prods etc. These more complex tasks and issues were placed towards the end so that people move into them after they became more comfortable with the project and editing.
  7. Overall design ideas - The overall design idea was to give contribs windows into the various areas where work was done and give them the chance to go there through simple text links. I have recently redesigned these windows and links to have more overt button style links with a brief description of their purpose. I have also slightly enlarged them to present more information without overwhelming the page with a massive wall of text.

The edits and redesigns that have been made over the past few months have robbed the page of its welcoming features and turned it into a wall of statistics. Boring statistics that contribs have to wade through before they come to the membership section, which has been placed at the end. So our membership is the last thing people see after wading through literal pages of statistics and complex ideas that can not help our cause. This is not a good way to welcome people into our project and encourage them to join.

Additionally, descriptions are terse and uninformative or altogether missing, and lack any form of warmth or welcome. The sub-pages are poorly laid out and lack simple, descriptive instructions and guidelines.

I will continue this later, I need to go to bed. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jerem43 in utilizing an invitation template, so I've boldly created Template:WP Food and drink invitation. When placed on a user's talk page, this template automatically adds in a header2 section (modified to bold here so the header doesn't appear on this talk page), fills in the recipient's name and automatically adds a signature from its sender. Of course, this can be further modified with different colors, image(s), etc., if so desired. The following below is created by using {{subst:WP Food and drink invitation}}. If consensus here is to use this (or another) invitation template, it should be added to the project's templates page. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Food and drink

Hello, WikiProject Food and drink.

You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics.

Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. ~~~~

sources

Someone noted above that it's hard to find good scholarly sources (for history etc.) about food... this is true! I work in a university library that has a very good food and drink related collection, and I'd be glad to help project members find sources. There's a few other good libraries like this around, but the vast majority of sources are not online. I'm wondering if we can have some kind of virtual source-a-thon, combine getting print sources with articles that need them. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It is good of you to bring that up, we actually have a really good page that includes allot of reference works. It was set up by Chef Tanner before he left us. I'll have to dig it up. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Expert recruit for a page

Hey guys I just read the Chinese Cuisine page and I'd like to propose to everyone to try to find an expert to verify the page and add more information as well as details. But what's hard is that the Chinese food varys so much from place to place that finding only one expert to ameliorate the page might be inconclusive. Could someone help? Thanks a lot! Robertpb97 (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon - FA nomination

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon is currently a candidate for consideration for a 2nd time for Featured Article quality status.

The discussion page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

First Gentleman's Cookbook - Bill Orr.jpg

image:First Gentleman's Cookbook - Bill Orr.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

First bacon Featured Article

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon is now the first Featured Article related to bacon.

Thanks for all the help to all who contributed to the effort, — Cirt (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello,
Please note that Ranch dressing, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 03:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Chocolate Task Force

A proposal is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Chocolate Task Force that affects this group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_10#Category:Vegans

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_10#Category:Vegans. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-GMO Project Verification Mark.jpeg

image:Non-GMO Project Verification Mark.jpeg has been nominated for deletion -- `65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Heritage Grill

Heritage Grill has been nominated for deletion. Any comments at the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ingredients lists

I noticed that some articles on commercial food brands include a list of the ingredients. (For example, OK Cola) Is this encouraged or are they unencyclopedic indiscriminate lists?-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Balinese cuisine

I have started an article on this subject. I have also requested an admin move the list article that was there but that was deleted be moved to my userspace so I can see what was there. Any assistance would be most welcome. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the new article. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Archive_25&oldid=1238756794"