Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Naming issue on protein articles

Over the past few years there has been some changes regarding the naming structure of animal-based protein subjected articles (e.g. fish and types of fish, poultry and types of poultry etc.); unfortunately the we have drifted from a fairly standard structure (Name of protein (food)) to a mishmash of article names (Fish as food, Turkey meat etc.)

The question I am asking is this, what should the naming structure of these articles follow?

1. Name of protein (food)
2. Name of protein as food
3. Name of protein meat

Now the first option seems the most logical to me and for many years was the format we used for these types of articles. Additionally this format follows the naming structure that WP uses in other fields (eg Name of film (film), Name of book (novel) etc.). The second structure seems unwieldy to me, and the the third has issues that conflict with societal perception of proteins within western culture (eg meat is traditionally the flesh consumed from mammalian sources, fowl or poultry from avian sources and fish from aquatic, non-mammalian sources.)

I would like to develop a formal naming structure for these topics so that we can move forward with a more uniform approach to the topic of animal-based proteins consumed for food.

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC) (Soylent Green is People!)

I would think that one of the reasons for the different structures is that some protein names are only for food (Beef) and look redundant if anything else is added: Beef (food), Beef as food, Beef meat. Some are also animal names but can be disambiguated by adding 'meat' (Turkey meat). Some sound strange in English being called meat (Fish meat). valereee (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Is uniformity more important than names that sound natural on their own? It kind of feels to me as if the only time using various structures would be a problem is when they're in a list? valereee (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification - I'm not talking about proteins such as beef, veal, mutton or other terms which are already food specific; what I am talking about are articles concerning proteins that are usually called by the same name as the animal that they are obtained from (eg fish, anchovies, salmon, egg, chicken, turkey, lamb, etc). --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the word meat is problematic. Not only are there differing views on what species constitute meat, there are also differing views on which tissues are meat—some would say that only muscle tissue is meat, for example, while others might say it's anything that's not bones or teeth. Considering that there are many dishes made from scales, skin, cartilage, blood, etc, and an article about a particular animal is presumably intended to cover all culinary uses thereof, I'd think it's clearer to use X as food. That said, I think naturalness and recognizability are just a little more important than uniformity, so if there's a consensus to name a particular page differently, then that's worth following. Ibadibam (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

chocolate cake confusions

The page Molten_chocolate_cake needs to be reviewed. I suggest to create one page for "molten chocolate cake" and one page for "chocolate fondant". They are indeed different:

• The fondant is indeed usually flourless, or contains much less flour than other recipes of chocolate cake (but more eggs and butter). It is usually not in individual portions and the inside is not liquid. It has been cooked slowly hence it has a humid/heavy/fat texture, but certainly not liquid.
• On the other hand, the molten chocolate cake is often served in individual portions, and it has been cooked at high temperature, quickly so that the outside is cooked but the inside is still a bit raw: liquid=melting. In French it is also called a 'mi-cuit' which means 'half-cooked'. And indeed it is also sometimes called "moelleux" because it is a recipee of moelleux, but which has been half cooked. A moelleux contains a lot of flour compared to the fondant. It is fully cooked it would be too dry. That's why usually we half cook them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.164.159.185 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present). --Lucas559 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sailor sandwich

Wikipedia Editors, there is a discussion about Sailor sandwich article that may relate to this wikiproject's topic. Peace MPS (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• N.b. The result of the discussion was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikithon on women and food at the British Library

People here might be interested that on Monday July 6th there's a wikithon on women and food organized by the Oxford Food Symposium and hosted at the British Library. Dsp13 (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Pickled cucumber

Pickled cucumber should be rewritten, the article misinforms. According to my knowledge there arde two different types of food - fermented (sour) cucumbers and nonfermented ones with vinegar. Only on this basis details of processing can be discussed. I'm not sure if there is any difference between kosher (but not kosher) and Polish cucmbers.Xx236 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

So according to this: http://www.nyfoodmuseum.org/_pkwhat.htm there are really 4 types of pickles listed the 3 numbered and then candied listed below. Which is supported by this: http://www.ilovepickles.org/node/18 as well. Regarding Polish vs. Kosher. Mt. Olive Pickles have Polish Kosher Dills (http://www.mtolivepickles.com/products/product-styles/polish-kosher-dills) which have added garlic over there Kosher dill, which is in line with this: http://www.thenibble.com/REVIEWS/MAIN/condiments/pickles/pickle-glossary4.asp#p and this: http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/kosher-pickle-vs-polish-pickle-40645.html ; all of which say that Polish pickles have more garlic and possibly other seasonings than kosher pickles while otherwise being closely related. Falconjh (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's most popular food

I noticed some strangeness around the most popular Wikipedia article on a food topic and posted it to WikiProject Medicine, because my interest was in sharing food health information. I thought that anyone here might also care to join the talk at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Wikipedia_readers_demand_pancakes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Jalapeño

If someone could review, comment, and/or offer suggestions on the Jalapeño article I would appreciate it; I have done more substantial edits on that article than what I have ever previously done on an article and so would like some, at least, feedback. Thanks. Falconjh (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Berry, 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 Community portal 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 Evad37 [talk] 01:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

There is a RfC on Talk:Berry regarding splitting Berry into two articles being the botanical definition (what it has been) and common usage as seen in horticulture, cooking, etc. Falconjh (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plant-based diet Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Psychology of eating meat"

The usage and topic of Psychology of eating meat is under discussion, see DRAFT TALK: Psychology of eating meat -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Fish is meat, some say

Is fish meat? Please give your opinion at the bottom of this thread. Thank you all! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A taste of Italy

Hello WikiProject Food and drink members: feel free to help improve the new List of Italian soups article. Thanks for your consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The taste of fat

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleogustus. It is proposed that an article about what fat molecules taste like should be deleted because it does not meet the sourcing standards in WP:MEDRS (which is intended for content about diseases or medical procedures). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with a draft?

I'm going to cut/paste this at another WP so that it gets a well rounded amount of editors.

Basically, I came across Draft:Psychology of eating meat. It's an interesting article, enough to where I think that as a topic it has a lot of merit as a Wikipedia article. The editor has certainly done their research and there are a lot of sources here. The only drawback is that this article kind of puts off big research essay/paper vibes, enough to where I wasn't really comfortable accepting it as is. It needs some re-writing here and there and I think that it'd be best if this was done by someone (or someones) used to doing this with research articles of this type. An example of what kind of gives off OR type vibes are things like the use of "for example" quite liberally through the article.

Anyone want to help out? I really don't want this article to stagnate in the userspace. The editor (User:FourViolas) has done a very, very good job of cleaning it from its earlier version, so I really don't want this decline to discourage them from further cleaning the article. I don't think that it'd really take much, just some editing here and there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)