Template talk:Infobox food/Archive 1

Archive 1

Word Wrap Problems

I used nowrap to protect lines ending in oparen ess cparen from wrapping badly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.181.66 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

September 2011 changes

After a bit of tinkering, I've rolled back the changes to the image template. The reason I did this is because the changes had caused images to show up incorrectly, i.e. with [[File: showing up before and after them. All the pages currently use the image parameter by passing an [[File:]] or [[Image:]]. To make a change that's in line with the rest of Wiki (image = Myfile.jpg, imagesize = 203px) we'd have to change over all the images everywhere. I suppose an AWB script could be written to do that, but that's a little beyond my skill with AWB. Anyway, I've reverted the changes. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Origin" heading

For a food like Gulab jamun, whose place of origin is disputed, it doesn't look very good to have the heading "Origin", with "Alternative names" directly beneath it. Can someone suggest and/or implement an improvement? Thanks. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

serving size

I just noticed that the infobox "calories" field has been changed from saying "per serving" to "per 100g serving". Although standardising on 100g is probably a good thing, this unannounced change means any infoboxes that use food-specific non-100g "standard servings" will now contain nonsense values, and worse it will be hard to tell which do and which don't since the original infobox didn't require the serving size to be given. Since changing an infobox template doesn't constitute an edit of the articles that use it, editors of food articles won't have had any alert on their watchlist and won't necessarily know their infobox data need rechecking.

As an example, Genoa Cake is 150kcal "per serving" but 340kcal "per 100g", since a "serving" is normally considered to be 1 slice (1/8 cake). Maybe a new "per 100g" field should be created and the previous one kept as a generic "per serving" one to avoid articles containing screwed up figures. Samatarou (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

you can set the value of |serving_size= or leave it blank. we could make the blank default? Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed it back the old behaviour (no serving size by default). you can use |serving_size=100 g for 100 g, but the default is an unspecified serving size as it was before. Frietjes (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Bug?

The instance of the template at Banket (food) is broken; possibly due to a template bug. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

fixed. Frietjes (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You fixed the displayed template by changing |name={{Lang|nl|Banket}} to |name=Banket. However, it should not be necessary to do this; the use of {{lang}} in the name parameter should be catered for. Why do we even need Wikisource and Commons search links in the infobox? I think they should be removed. We have better templates, such as {{Commons category}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

added |name_lang=. Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sister links

As mentioned above, I propose that we remove the Wikisource and Commons search links from this infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

All those horizontal lines

I don't know about those. What do you think about removing (most of) them? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Truly none of this is necessary. See the sandbox for a revised version which uses proper labels and makes the table far more compact in addition to significantly improving its semantic value. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Thumperward: Much better, thank you. I do think, though that we should retain "type" above the image ("soup", in the testcase example) - more infoboxes should do this. Can we also get rid of the sister links (see next two sections), then deploy this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Any particular reason for keeping "type" as a top element, rather than as a standard key-value pair? For the sisterlinks I'd prefer to get an idea of how widely they're used first - this is a significant reworking of the template layout but it's not actually changing much of the content for the sake of an uncontroversial transition. Anyway, the code is deployed now: I'll change the way the type is presented back to how it was if you've got a rationale for it, or you can give it a go yourself (the code is a lot easier to read now). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

and we are back to 2012 minus the headers. Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Country, national cuisine

Some more guidance on when and how to use country, region, and national_cuisine seems necessary. Currently the documentation says that 'country' is "Country of origin of the dish" while 'national_cuisine' is "Cuisine by nationality." Gah? What's the difference? Should 'national cuisine' be used (only?) for dishes strongly associated with a nation?* Should 'country' then be used with the country where something was first served? Or where it's traditionally served? What if the moment or locale of origination is unknown, or known only imprecisely?

The question came up with Peach Melba, whose place of origin is precisely known. The dish was created by Auguste Escoffier, a chef associated with French cuisine, especially haute cuisine, but he first served it at the Savoy Hotel in London. Is 'country' even relevant in that case? (I thought "no", but another editor disagreed, and I don't think either of us is sure we are correct.)

*I could further ask, "What counts as a nation?" The answer to that question seems pertinent to, say bagel, a dish associated with Ashkenazi Jews throughout Europe and North America, though the infobox currently says "country = Poland, region = Central Europe".

Cnilep (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem with Wikibooks links

The template creates a link to an assumed name for an article on Wikibooks using the PAGENAME and the Wikibooks Cookbook namespace; however, this will rarely be correct for two part names, e.g. Pumpkin pie as the naming policy on Wikibooks requires title case, thus B:Cookbook:Pumpkin Pie, not B:Cookbook:Pumpkin pie (the latter works only because I recently created a redirect, these are however not common).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

the solution is probably to have a specific parameter for linking to sister projects, rather than trying to do so automatically. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That would probably be best, but the problem here was that {{wikibooks-inline}} assumes that a second parameter means a sub-page, rather than being the title of the link as I'd assumed. Now fixed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks! But it is still a problem as you note at User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak/archive40#Link_redirection_not_working_help_needed the fix doesn't work for Bubble and squeak which links to B:Cookbook:Bubble_and_squeak but should link to B:Cookbook:Bubble_and_Squeak.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

fixed here. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Made it into Special:Search format[1] which would fix the case sensitive problem (and also leads the reader to search page if no article exist).···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 07:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Type parameter not listing in articles

The Type parameter in the infobox is presently not displaying in articles. For example, see Chicken soup, where the type is listed as "Soup" on the edit page, but it's not appearing when viewing the article. The transclusions are a little tricky, so pinging significant contributors User:Vanischenu, User:Sardanaphalus, User:Frietjes to request input here to hopefully correct this problem. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the article. Apperently type isn't a field on the infobox, they placed it in course. ///ECGT Mobile | On the Go 06:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:EuroCarGT Mobile/User:EuroCarGT: Yes, but food types typically aren't food courses. The problem is that under the current parameters, people would have to go through every food article and move content in the Type section to the Course section, which again, wouldn't be accurate. Furthermore, another problem is that both Course and Type cannot both be included at this time. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

More examples of the Type field being filled-in, but not displaying: Gelatin dessert, Macaroni, Panettone, Candy, Doughnut, and many, many more at Pages that link to "Template:Infobox prepared food". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps, if |course= is set, the "Type" label for this entry should change to "Course" – although setting |course= currently overrides setting |type=, so perhaps this should be switched or separate Type and Course entries offered..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• (ping) User:Sardanaphalus: Separate Type and Course parameters would be a fine solution. I don't have time right now to go into it all, but feel free to commence if you can cover it. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@NorthAmerica, Changing {{{course|{{{type|}}} }}} to {{ #if: {{{course|}}} | {{{course|}}} | {{{type|}}}}} [2] seems to fix the problem (test case), still keeping type parameter redundant when course is defined. But I am also in favour of separating them. Thanks···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 16:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've just implemented a version of the template with separate Type and Course entries – hopefully all okay (as suggested by the testcases page). Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much; after spot-checking several pages and performing some test edits, the matter appears to be resolved. When performing test edits, I tried out listing information in both the Course and Type parameters, and it displayed both. Articles spot-checked that only have the Type parameter filled-in (as opposed to both Course and Type) are now displaying it when in read mode. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Complexity

Would it be OK to get rid of the complexity parameter? It's too subjective and there doesn't seem to exist any commonly agreed way of measuring food preparation complexity that could be used consistently across all food articles. Plus, the parameter doesn't seem to be used much anyway. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed this also. If there is no other response in the next few weeks, I will go ahead and delete it.

I have now deleted this arbitrary parameter. P. S. Burton (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Nutritional value

Add module for Template:Nutritional value?--Zoupan 04:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Some reasons:

1. Incorporating nutritional value will greatly expand the appearance of this template, and such a change likely needs consensus. Something like that should be established before activating a template like this.
2. It's unclear exactly how you envision this change will look like on this current template.
3. Did you mean to make an edit request at {{Infobox nutritional value}}?
4. You already have autoconfirmed rights to edit the template.

Cheers — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

If you meant to back this template and the nutritional value templates with actual Lua modules (??), you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Lua. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikibook via Wikidata

This template adds a search to Wikibook's Cookbook namespace. I'd suggest that when a sitelink is present on Wikidata to Wikibooks, this direct link is used instead. --Azertus (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons Link

The link to commons is rubbish. Can we just have a {{Commonscat}}-like link? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

seems like a good idea. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Support. On the pages where the link to Commons does not correspond to the proper Commons category/page, one uses {{Commonscat}} or similar. Having this option here would allow us a consistent use of the link on all pages. --Off-shell (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Embedding other Infoboxes inside the Infobox Food template

Can the Template:Infobox food be modified so that other Infoboxes can be embedded inside this template? Such a feature would be most useful for articles that describe Chinese, Thai, Japanese and other dishes in which the name originated in a non-Romance language script.

As an example, the article Cha siu bao uses 2 different Infoboxes Template:Infobox prepared food and Template:Infobox chinese. It would be nice if the Template:Infobox Chinese could be embedded inside the Template:Infobox prepared food. Other examples include Kimchi, Bánh, Bibimbap, and Popiah.

The article Chow mein shows awkward example in which the template:Infobox prepared food and template:Infobox chinese templates is embeded in a third template. This method looks awful.

It would be best if a method can be found in which a language Infobox (i.e., Template:Infobox Chinese, Template:Infobox Vietnamese, etc.) can be embedded inside the primary template:Infobox prepared food. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sister projects article names which differ from the Wikipedia article (change request)

Similar to "Problem with Wikibooks links" above, I'd like to request that the infobox template be changed to allow for different names in different projects. E.g., the Commons category for Empanada is "Empanadas"—it'd be nice to link to it from he infobox, rather than using the kludge of a separate link in the "External links" section.

(This is prompted in part by this; tagging in Mr. Bednarek.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have no objections to the request, but removing as redundant {{Commons category}} from articles' external links section seems counterproductive. The content of infoboxes is meant to duplicate what's in the article (with rare specific exemptions), and there might be scenarios where the view of infoboxes is modified or suppressed by editors or on mobile devices. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Add line break to Cookbook and Commons inline templates

The current format often creates weird wrapping, where the Commons link is often separated from its icon, which still lingers on the first line. See Caesar salad for example. Could a line break be added in between the Cookbook and Commons inline templates? Perhaps with a left text-alignment and a left padding of 1.5em? Jay D'Easy (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done $\color {blue}\chi$_chi (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

creator parameter

Refer to discussion here, whereas there is a question regarding definition of |creator=. I suggest to revise description of |creator= and |creators= to be "specific individual/group or chef who first created the dish" for clarity. Looking forward to other editors input. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes, creator is the Humanity. --BoldLuis (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested Changes

I think the "Approximate Calories per serving :" should be changed to "Approximate energy per serving :" and the template accept both Calories and kilojoules and convert between the two. --121.72.241.142 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I second this. Also, the parameter "calories" should be changed to "energy" or deprecated to create the latter. Calories are not the most commonly used units, nor are they SI units, which is not compliant with MOS:UNITS. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

kcalories per 100 g, that can be automatically converted to kJ (using a template). One calorie is equal to 4.2 joules approx. Because of this,the template nowadays says: "Use a raw number for automatic conversion to kJ".--BoldLuis (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Calories (kcal) parameter

As the number of Calories depends entirely on the portion size, why do we have this listed? It seems like a worthless parameter. I think it should be removed from the template. Wikipedia is not a menu. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I second this. Also, the parameter "calories" should be changed to "energy" or deprecated to create the latter. Calories are not the most commonly used units, nor are they SI units, which is not compliant with MOS:UNITS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Getsnoopy (talk • contribs)

It is basic in an encyclopedia know the nutritional values of every food, because it is basic data of them. But there is an error in the template. It must not be by serving, but by 100 g. --BoldLuis (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The template should (1) be labelled "energy" (or similar) (2) prefer the SI unit kilojoules to the non-SI unit kilocalories (in both display and template data entry), (3) be expressed in either per 100g (for foodstuffs) or per 100 ml (for beverages) instead of per serving, and (4) if we are to support per servings measures at all, they should be in addition to the per 100g/100ml figure, and the serving size (in grams or millilitres) should be explicitly stated. SJK (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)