Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Food and drink Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

This is an archive of the Food & Drink WikiProject talk page for September-December 2009

The above article is tagged as a fruit stub and as a vegetable stub. I am neither botanist nor chef so I have no idea which is correct. Could someone clarify by removing one of the tags? Thanks. Jubilee♫clipman 23:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Botanically I think it's a fruit, but in common parlance I think it's a vegetable. This is just my original research. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an explanation on [[1]], but it lacks references and is rather vague, as for Solanum ovigerum, the article is under merge discussion so... I'll look into reinforcing the vegetable article, but I don't min if somebody does it before me! --Anneyh (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the plan? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• My solution would be to break the Cuisine of Northeastern United States sections into individual articles. The Cuisine of New England looks like a better article format as it is. Then I would redirect/merge one of the original two titles to the other one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Dove (brand) is listed as a Food and Beverage category. Dove (brand) is a personal care product.I believe a bot read Dove as Dove Chocolates. (Same as a bot probably read Saffron (color) as Saffron (spice)). Can a bot be programmed to ignore Dove (brand) as a Food and Beverage category? Can a bot be programmed to ignore Saffron (color) as a Food and Beverage category? I am here to edit and I do hope someone can do something with this. I do my best editing by clicking on Random articles and edit them from bottom to top because more errors occur near the end of an article.

Respectfully,

Tiyang 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to everyone if this is in the wrong place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiyang (talk • contribs) 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that category:Unilever brands is also tagged with a food category, thus the overlap and problem with the tagging. This is an issue from last year and this was a straggler that was not corrected. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to have the proper pronunciation of "Tzimmes" added to its page. I have been looking for this information and it would be very useful if you would add it. (I'm sure there are other subjects that would benefit from this information as well.) Thank you. Drpepin (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it pronounced as spelled?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Came across Organic milk while patrolling the new articles. As you can see, the article needs some improvement - partly due to the style of the article (it's a bit essay-like, but the author keeps removing the tags), partly because it may be a bit POV. Unfortunately, I'm not that experienced in these type of articles, so I thought I would post it here in case any members of this Wikiproject want to take a look. Singularity42 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I did some work on it, as well as another contributor. I left a note ion the creator's talk page to let him know what was done and why. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the POV problems and unsubstantiated claims; I think it's pretty balanced now. I also removed most of the "see also's", which sent people to various pages about sustainable lifestyles (and even a scholarly journal not published since the 1950s) and were completely unrelated to milk. The article is fairly bare bones now, so if anyone wants to add to it, that would be great. Let's just make sure it's not a soapbox for the organic food industry. Pdcook (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was told by a butcher at my local grocery that Colby cheese and Colby longhorn are the same cheese, does anyone out there know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.151.249 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see a "longhorn" cheese is just a cheese made in a tall cylinder rather than a more common round or squat cylindrical shape. I could be wrong as the sources are scanty. Pyrope 19:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This important event is just getting under way. Everyone is welcome to participate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we need articles for each flavor of doughnut or is that overcoverage? Pdcook (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Only the notable ones. But there are regional and national variations that need to be included somewhere in order for coverage to be comprehensive. I think the potato doughnut article is interesting and ripe for expansion. The jelly doughnut and boston cream doughnut also need expansion, and there are lots of interesting varieties that need articles, redirects, mergers etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess my question is where do we draw the line? Who determines what a notable doughnut is? This could depend heavily on personal opinion and it could spiral into a great many articles, and perhaps set a precedence for other food types as well. In other words, why are coconut and potato doughnuts noteworthy, but maple nut, plain, powdered, sprinkled, etc. not noteworthy? Too bad there isn't a WP:Notability (doughnut)! That's why personally I would draw the line at a list of doughnut types (and a brief description perhaps) common in a given country or area. Pdcook (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Coconut is borderline. No question about it. But there was at least one article about it. Some other types are just flavors. I am finding a distinction between "cake doughnuts" and risen (I think) doughnuts. I'll have to look to see whether that's covered in the main article. Some types are quite distinct and notable. So I don't see why it's bad to have articles on them. It would be hard to do them justice in the main article. Potato doughnut for example has a very long and interesting history. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I've recently posted a proposed thorough overhaul of the Soil Association page to more accurately reflect the organisation's activities and history. Can those with an interest in this fascinating organisation please comment / approve. I'm a new contributer to Wikipedia, so not entirely sure of the edit / approval process. The page is rated grade C, high importance by WikiProject Food and drink.

Best wishes, Jackhunter (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors should boldly make whatever changes you believe improve the encyclopedia. Changes are easily undone if there are disagreements later, but efforts that introduce verifiable facts, improve the writing style, or make the content fair and balanced are very welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Does WikiProject Food and drink have a general guideline on whether it's okay to include links to specific recipes in an article's External links? It seems to me that this would very rapidly proliferate as everyone adds their own "secret family recipe", etc.
I've taken a quick look around pages of this project and didn't see an answer to this question. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've always taken the view that recipes should reflect the general character of the dish, and should be sourced in the same way as other external links (i.e. from reputable, stable sites, not food blogs etc.). Pyrope 19:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Don't forget that "External links" are just as much a part of the article as anything else. They aren't just a dump for "other stuff on the interweb", but should be used to illustrate the article with other examples and provide links to more detailed information that isn't suitable for a general interest encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Pyrope 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that recipes should be in the external links unless it's a more comprehensive website with a bit of research on the facts behind the dish. Otherwise, I think you're right that we'll get a lot of links to Joe Nobody's recipes posted on blogspot! Pdcook (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Check out the guidance: Wikipedia:External links. If someone added cruft to the main article text you would revert it; the same goes for inappropriate links. Pyrope 15:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue with including recipes in the external links is that people eventually start adding links to all of their favorite versions and the section gets crowded. That is what happened with the chocolate chip cookie page, I had to prune a dozen or more out to get it looking manageable. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for replies. I'm going to go ahead and start deleting such "crufty" external links when I see them, and trust to normal Wikipedia process to replace the actually valuable ones. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How do I evaluate whether a website recipe link is a copyright infringement?

Often recipes are excerpted from cookbooks. If the source is indicated, is that regarded as "fair use"? If there is no source, am I obliged to contact the website to gather more info? As for original recipes on blogs, is it possible that the recipe has been copyrighted? NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no issues with linking to the copyright holder's own website. You aren't reproducing the recipe here just providing a link to a site where, presumably, the copyright holder actively wants people to visit! In fact this is a good way of showing the diversity of a recipe's construction without clogging the Wikipedia article with all the possible permutations. What you will need to be careful about is linking to a site that pirates recipes without giving due copyright consideration. As with most things on here, if you are unsure about the copyright status of a link then leave it out. This link sensitivity stems from concerns about contributory copyright infringement. In other words, if you provide a link to a site that you know to be in breach of copyright then you can, in some jurisdictions, be held liable for at least a proportion of the views (and hence the instances of infringement) that the site creates. Generally, if a site carries a copyright notice you should be fine, as they are making a claim to copyright which you should take in good faith. Some sites obviously abuse this, but Wikipedia doesn't ask editors to become copyright sleuths! Pyrope 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Pyrope. I'm sure that I'll have more questions about copyright in the future. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Up for discussion: requested moves involving Amaretto and Bizcocho and their respective disambiguation pages. See Talk:Amaretto#Requested move and Talk:Bizcocho#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Both were kept as is. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This aritcle says it's an alcoholic beverage. What's up with that? In the U.S. we call that hard cider. Should they be disambiguated? Also, I started a cider mill article that needs oodles of work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I see now there is an apple cider article on the non-alcoholic version. I tried to clarify. If someone else wants to follow-up, have at it. But an article on cider can't be just about an alcoholic beverage unless it's made clear why up front (and it still seems underhanded :) to me). I also messed with the human consumption section of apple. Can someone with more knowledge than I have clarify which ones are fermented, which ones are distilled, etc.? Gracias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As an avid bar-b-quer I would say the best method of preparing tri-tip steak is by using a dry rub. Usually a seasoning salt such as garlic salt works best and ground pepper adds a bit of spice to the meat. Be liberal with the salt and pepper! It is a very thick cut of meat and much seasoning is lost in the process of turning it over. I found that when bar-b-qing tri-tip an open flame bar-b-que that can have the height adjusted works wonders. Especially if using a high heat flame produced from say mesquite. When I first started with tri-tip I was bent on using nothing but oak as a fire source. As oak affords a rich smokey flavor to the meat, but experimented with other wood types and discovered the smokey aroma left by a good mesquite is bar none the best route to take. Most prefer to cut the fat side before cooking, I would warn against this when using mesquite as it is a very hot, intense burning wood. Also, I would add that placing the meat fat-side down first is the best approach. Be careful though, as a lot of you know this will only add to the intensity of the heat and flame (due to the "raining" effect of the fat). No worry though, simply keep a water bucket close by to subdue the flame. Depending on your taste you can play with the level of flame. I prefer medium to medium-high heat, and low flame. After about 35-45 minutes of hitting it with heat turn that sucker over, adjusting for pockets of lower heat by putting those pieces that were in a more intense heat area there. Here is the trick, spank the burnt fat off the now top side then add spices, more or less to your liking, but I go a little less due to the absorbing factor of the fatty side. 35-40 minutes later you got a tri-tip worthy of a king! FreddogT (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you want to say, however this is not the place to say it. The discussion page is to discuss ways to improve food and drink article on Wikipedia, not post cooking tips. If you would like, I would suggest visiting the cookbook section of Wikibooks and contributing there. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but it was informative. FreddogT can also post his tips on his user page, where I think it would be OK. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Related to Chili con queso, I have started a spin-off article about queso flameado aka queso fundido, here. The new article would be much improved by a photo. Does anyone have one? Please post it to Wikimedia Commons and drop a note on my talk page. Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick look and it reads fine. Well cited with good prose. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeast bread is a red link. Is there at least some place we could redirect it to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that a particular variety of bread, or does it simply mean bread that is leavened with yeast? If the latter case is true, then it could be redirected to Bread#Yeast_leavening. Regards, PDCook (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Based on the context in the article Filone (which I think is what brought you here), I assume it's the latter case. I didn't redirect, but rather piped the link to Bread#Yeast_leavening. Regards, PDCook (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was the existence of quick bread that made me look for yeast bread. We have detailed articles like Proofing (baking technique), but nothing about the enormous class of breads that use these techniques. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear all,

please assist me in identifying how long does this have a shelf life?? When used how do we manage the balance??

I have been asked if the balance was mixed with fresh stocks will there be a contamination?

If yes then how do we manage the coverture in a manner where the shelf life can be expanded to it's maximum?

Please send your replies to gkumar@klccconventioncentre.com

202.179.97.113 (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know that much about Couverture chocolate, other than it has a higher fat content than typical chocolate. For that reason, I would suspect its shelf life is a little shorter. However, if it is tightly sealed in a cool place I don't see why it shouldn't last several months. That being said, I have no references for that so don't include that in the article, if that's why you're asking! Maybe someone else knows more? Regards, PDCook (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's mis-tagged. DavidOaks (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 event even before the New Year starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who object to or don't like messing with pig products and this year's event includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this kind of cheese always capitalised? I recently ran across someone who says that it's named for a place, and should thus always be capitalised; i.e., "Cheddar cheese" is correct, and "cheddar cheese" is wrong. I've never before come across a claim like this, and the other person dismissed as irrelevant my statement that "cheddar" was common usage and that therefore (in the spirit of WP:USEENGLISH) we shouldn't require "Cheddar". Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been under discussion at WT:Cheese, it has been decided that we should capitalize cheeses that are named after places. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In articles about restaurants, does anyone think it's a good idea to add images of foods and dishes related to them? I'm asking this because an image I added for Greenwich Pizza has been nominated for deletion. Upon contacting the one who nominated it, I figure his reason for listing is rather absurd. FoxLad (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question. In this case I'm really not too sure. But my personal feeling is you took the picture, it does no harm, so keep it, assuming that it is a signature dish. There is no copyright issue. By the way, it should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. It won't be deleted there.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to revise my opinion slightly: no good reason was given for deleting it, so I voted to keep. It's a fine photo, and we should have more good editor-generated photos. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to learn that Kraft Macaroni and Cheese is named Kraft Dinner, its Canadian name, on Wikipedia. This is absurd. Nothing in the article points to this being a primarily Canadian product, but the article has a strongly Canadian slant. It's fine that Canada is well represented in this article, but shouldn't it be moved to Kraft Macaroni and Cheese? This has been proposed, amazingly, as far back as 2006, at which time there was opposition, but it was proposed again in June and there seems to be a consensus to move it. I'd appreciate it if some of us could look into this on the Talk page and move it if appropriate. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, and seeing as there seems to be consensus that the article be moved, I think you should go ahead and move it. PDCook (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

John, I just reformatted the discussion as a proper requested move, lets wait the seven days to see if consensus stays with move. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. Gosh I haven't had Kraft Macaroni and Cheese in a while. I used to add tuna to it in college for a passable casserole. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I think being bold is a good thing, I guess we had better be safe than sorry. Tuna? ...groan... Well, I guess we all did things in college we're not proud of! PDCook (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My wife eats it mixed into scrambled eggs. I wont eat it unless I add some good Cheddar. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's really not a bad idea. I hope that all these variations and permutations are in the article. It's really not bad with tuna, I assure you.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The variations shouldn't be included unless they are both WP:Verifiable and WP:DUE.

Wikipedia does not need to always use the US name for things. Editors may benefit from careful consideration of WP:ENGVAR. In particular, if the article was originally written using the Canadian name, then it should almost certainly be kept there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I was half-jesting about the "variations," though come to think of it there may be sourcing on that. Food articles tend to sometimes not have the greatest sourcing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to the project, and just thought I would introduce myself. Sean (talk || contribs) 14:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there from the FA Team (ironically also known as WP:FAT). The FA Team, normally geared at helping new editors with great knowledge in a subject area but no experience with FAC and other similar areas, has been inactive for a while. To restart the project, I proposed a new mission, centered around food. I picked food because there very few top-quality article of specific dishes and a model might lead to more being written on the neglected subject. While I originally planned for the mission to be experienced editors with little knowledge of the subject, I figured it would be smoother if some food-folk join in. If you're interested, feel free to comment or keep track of the FA-Team talk page. In order to keep discussion centralized, please don't make comments here. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just an update, we have commenced the mission. You can see more info here. Mm40 (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)