Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Archive 21

Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25
WikiProject iconFood and drink Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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
ProjectThis page 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:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Shrimps and prawns

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shrimp#Caridea, Dendrobranchiata, Shrimp and Prawns. Does the term shrimp refer to a taxon or to a common name, and what is the scope of the shrimp and prawn articles? – Epipelagic (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment at Ya Kun Kaya Toast's ongoing peer review!

Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present my latest contribution to this project, an article about Ya Kun Kaya Toast, a Singapore-based food business! All members of this WikiProject are invited to support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by commenting at this article's ongoing peer review to help it achieve GA status! May you enjoy reviewing this short, but interesting, article, as much as I enjoyed writing it! Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

MOS relating to Asian cuisine?

A couple of articles in category:Vietnamese cuisine have been moved to anglicised (accent-stripped) spellings contrary to (i) what I have ever seen on Vietnamese take-out menus, (ii) some of the more academic travel and cookery books. Is there any guidance anywhere on WikiProject Food and drink about how to treat foreign dishes. I imagine (???) this is a regular issue for things like category:French cuisine, and so on. Can someone point me to a guideline please? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point of moving the articles at all, because a simple redirect can point to the right article name. The Banner talk 13:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move: Zante currant

This requested move discussion Talk:Zante currant needs expert input. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar templates

I have found a number of sidebar templates used by the F&D project (e.g. Template:Turkish_cuisine, Template:British_cuisine, Template:American_cuisine). These are far too imposing on the pages they are included into (see Bulgar wheat for an example). The effect is even worse on a mobile device, where the template must be scrolled past before the actual page content can be seen. For a particularly bad example, see Balti (food), where I have to scroll through five and a half pages of template on my mobile phone before I can start to read anything about what a Balti is. Most templates use a horizontal bar included at the bottom of the article page, hidden by default (see Template:Cuisine_of_Cyprus for a food related example, or Template:Noise for an example from a different project). This gives much more appropriate weight to the template in the article page.

Does the F&D project have a good reason for using such large sidebar templates? I would suggest using the horizontal templates used by most other projects, or at the very least making the template disappear on pages served to mobile devices. GyroMagician (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The sidebar templates are normally rather compact, The Turkish cuisine template has been gratuitously expanded beyond what it should be sized at. The American, British and other cuisine templates are better sized. Turkish cuisine should be pared down. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The sidebar templates don't work. They typically appear as the first item on the right of the page, in the position that would usually be occupied by a photograph representing article subject (e.g. see Tea (meal)). This gives the sidebar greater importance than the topic of the page, which seems wrong. If you view the page on a small device such as a mobile phone* the situation is even worse, with the template appearing before any of the page text, easily occupying several screens. Horizontal navboxes, as used by most projects, don't suffer from these problems. They are easy for the interested reader to find, but do not impose themselves so forcefully on the article page.
* If you don't have access to such a device, you can try it on an emulator such as this one from Opera: http://www.opera.com/developer/tools/mini/. Try the Balti_(food) page, for a particularly bad example.
GyroMagician (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Low Sodium Diet

The Wikipedia article "Low Sodium Diet" says: "People who follow a vigorous or moderate exercise schedule are usually advised to limit their sodium intake to 3,000 mg per day". This does not correspond with an intuitive understanding (muscles need sodium) nor with web articles (such as http://www.powerbar.com/articles/47/sodium-a-closer-look.aspx). Is there a mistake in the article? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.61.200 (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Request assistance on List of African dishes [Blatant advertisement!]

Hi folks. I started List of African dishes and am writing here to request that you, reading this, please fill out the description of one single item. There are over a hundred, and I will go insane if I try to do them all myself.

I know that soliciting like this is probably not allowed, somehow. But hey, it's for a good cause. Many thanks in advance for your kind, lovely, helpful edit that you are about to make right now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Solicitation for improvement of a new article/list seems perfectly legitimate to me. Chris857 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Michelin starred restaurants in the United Kingdom (work in progress)

Hi all,

I've been working on a new list page in my sandbox: User:Miyagawa/sandbox, which is to be the list of Michelin starred restaurants in the United Kingdom (although it'll need an update in the Autumn with the new list).

Well as you can see, it's rather a sea of red links at the moment due to the volume of restaurants and chefs who don't have articles, and rather than keep the list in hiding until I finally add the remaining references and check the dates etc, I thought I'd throw it out now in case anyone is looking for some inspiration about some articles to create. There's certainly what I would considering to be some "major" restaurants missing from the Wiki at the moment, such as Marcus Wareing at the Berkeley (currently a redirect to Marcus Wareing), and a whole bunch of those restaurants already created are limited to only a couple of lines to say essentially the restaurant's name and that it has a Michelin star.

From just looking around recently I have noticed that there are a surprising number of resources out there for article improvement for these types of articles, and I've managed to take Dinner by Heston Blumenthal, Petrús (restaurant) and The Box Tree all to GA when I was only expecting to create a 1500 character article for DYK. And also if anyone wants to collaborate on a particular restaurant/chef article, then I'm more than happy - I have both Times archive and Highbeam access for the older references (in fact if anyone in general wants me to check something, just drop me a note on my talk page, I'm more than happy to help out in any way I can).

Also, what do you all think of the different format? It's a bit different to the other national lists, but I was trying to produce something a bit more useful (I'm aware that I need to get all the dashes to sort low on the searching, at the moment its a bit annoying!). Anyway, just thought it'd be a nice idea not to act like a hoarder and keep all those red links to myself. ;) Miyagawa (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I have an issue with including the stars, it appears to violate WP:Not (we are not a travel guide) – I will say I have not looked at similar lists and do not know if they also include such information. Also, are there issues with reprinting the information from a copyrighted guide such as Michelin? Do those restaurants have proper secondary coverage outside of Michelin? There are issues with using guides and reviews to establish notability, and there have been some vocal discussions.
Also, you are right in that there are way too many redlinks as it stands now. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Well it's nothing that isn't also published on the Michelin website although you have to use a quite simply awful search engine to get the information, and industry magazines will simply publish the list changes themselves such as here. Given the number of national newspapers that will review michelin starred restaurants, and that Caterer and Hotelkeeper (a British print magazine) will often discuss these types of restaurants, there shouldn't be a major issue with finding reliable sourcing for all of these... well at least those that have held a star for more than a year and aren't gastropubs as you can see from the previous link that there is quite the turnover for those. As for the stars themselves, its no secret about which restaurants have which stars, and the year to star business isn't actually in the guide as far as I'm aware (I just thought it was something interesting). Miyagawa (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering now if I've wandered off partially down the wrong track. Having done a couple of football related FLs, I had been looking at it through those eyes but I think I might have made the mistake in creating a list of the current starred restaurants. Not only is there a copyright question remaining, but also, once a year a large number of the elements in the table will change. My thought now is that perhaps like with the football lists, having a minimum criteria (rather than the general criteria of having a star). I'm thinking that perhaps to be included in the list, a restaurant must have had at one point or another three stars - this shouldn't be too difficult to source as the first three star restaurant was only created in 1985 and I have access to the Times archives and so should be able to source the various changes. That would make the list less like a tourist guide as there will only be a handful of current restaurants (four at current count), although I wouldn't know just how many other 3 star restaurants have come and gone (I can only think of La Tante Claire off the top of my head). Perhaps if it turns out to be a quite small number, this can be increased to two star restaurants of all time (although I'd need to see just how many that is first as it could be a couple of hundred). I just think now that including the one star restaurants and making it the current year only makes the article quite unstable. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting project! Michelin restaurants are normally considered noteworthy, so forget the travelguide objection. I have been fooling around with Ireland (List of Michelin starred restaurants in Ireland) and The Netherlands (List of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands). In about another 125 restaurants I will have finished The Netherlands and move on to the next project. Not sure of what that will be. I have a slight antipathy against Engeland, so maybe Wales ([1]), Scotland ([2]) or the Channel Islands ([3]).
I think that a historical approach might be better then just making a list of present Michelin starred restaurants. It keeps you away from any promotional/travelguide considerations. Secondly, I think an overview of historically awarded stars is more in the interest of Wikipedia. It is less likely to get outdated (one update a year should be sufficient) and it easier with restaurants who are not consistent (like De Boerderij (restaurant), Prinses Juliana, De Kieviet or De Echoput).
If you go for the historical approach, I would not opt for an Great Britain-wide list. The list of The Netherlands is already a heavy one (sooner or later it needs to get split) and the GB-list will be even bigger. Michelin has it split in Wales, Scotland, Channel Islands, England and London. That looks a handy approach to me to avoid too heavy lists. The Banner talk 13:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that seals it, I'm going to switch to a London based list of all time restaurants, and those links are brilliant - I've already found the London page. I had no idea Michelin listed them all like that. Much easier than that horrible search engine of theirs. Like you say, it'll stop the lists from getting outdated once a year and will be simply more interesting. Miyagawa (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
In fairness I ought to point out that where the artist formerly known as Night of the Big Wind says "Michelin restaurants are normally considered noteworthy", what they mean is that they consider the inherently noteworthy. Others amongst us still think you need to meet the WP:GNG. Pyrope 20:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Up until now a few of my articles about Michelin starred restaurant are challenged. They were all kept... Off course, every article must be sourced properly, preferrably with more sources then Michelin alone. So far, that requirement failed me only once: User:The Banner/Workpage22. As you can see, a restaurant with a short star period long ago and a horrible common name. The Banner talk 20:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
With the best will in the world, pretty much all the articles you show above fail GNG. A few of your articles have been kept as discussions reached stalemate, but I don't recall a single one where the decision was emphatically in your favour. Don't mistake apathy and boredom with victory. Pyrope 21:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Auberge (restaurant), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Echoput, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nolet Het Reymerswale, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House (restaurant), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagatelle restaurant, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Pyramide, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masa (restaurant), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafferano and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Laundry paint another picture. On top of that: at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant the lack of recognition by Michelin and other restaurant guides was an argument to remove the article.
You are free to have a different opinion about the notability of Michelin starred restaurants, but don't tell stories... The Banner talk 21:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't. If you read those, you have quite a few people writing words to the tune of "Keep: it has a Michelin star", and others who raise valid and thoughtful discursive counter points. Michelin are simply a rating agency, they provide little to no discursive content in their reviews. Having a Michelin star might be considered as part of judging notability but it can't establish it in isolation. Just look at those articles you have provided as examples in your first post, above. Most of them are simply directory entries: 'there is a restaurant, it is here, it has a Michelin star, somebody famous used to work here'. That's it. How many of them have sources that provide "significant" coverage? Sure, you give them the appearance of having lots of references by reusing that Michelin history site over and over and over and over, and padding them out with notes from guidebooks (again, deeply fails the "significant" part of GNG) and links to websites directly connected with the subject, but when you scrape away the rubbish you are left with virtually no citations that stand up to scrutiny under GNG. I know you are in love with Michelin and you look down your nose at the rest of the world, we have had those discussions before, and frankly I don't really care, but if you can't find even one discursive editorial article that discusses the history of the restaurant, its social standing, the impact it has had on cuisine or local culture, or similar, then it really does argue that the restaurant itself isn't significant. Pyrope 13:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Pyrope has hit the nail straight on the head, Michelin does not establish notability but it can be an indicator. Michelin and others are primarily directories of restaurants that contain reviews. There is nothing in them that provides information other than where it is, what they serve and if the reviewer liked it. You need more to establish notability as set up in the GNG. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Having had a night to think on this, it occurs to me that the fundamental problem you will come up against with this project is that it is extremely rare for a restaurant (that is, the business entity) to be intrinsically notable. In commercial cuisine the driving forces behind fame and innovation aren't bricks and mortar structures and their staff, but chefs and their talent. Once in a while a restaurant will transcend that and become significant in itself (Delmonico's, The Ivy, Nobu, The French Laundry, The Fat Duck and the Savoy Grill all spring to mind) but mostly they are vehicles for a chef to display their talent before they move on to something else. Good restaurants come and good restaurants go, but good chefs endure. I really think that you need to make sure that the restaurant itself is the notable entity, and if it is then you should have no problem meeting WP:GNG without having to try and bend the criteria. Pyrope 17:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong here. It is the combination of the qualities of the chef and this team that makes the food great. No great food, no points in the Gault Millau. But put a star chef in a lousy building (for example: Alain Ducasse in a McDonald's) and he will never get a Michelin star. The good work of the white brigade (kitchen crew) can easily be screwed by a bad performance of the black brigade (waiters, maitre and sommelier) in the front of the house. Even with a good black and white brigade, things like excessive prices, dirty toilets, bad reservations department, uncomfortable tables and chairs and a badly designed and decorated rooms can kill off favourable ratings and reviews. The chef is indeed the prima donna, but also the rest of the show must be up to a high standard. The fact that a restaurant is mentioned in several important restaurant guides (like the ones listed in Restaurant rating#List of restaurant guides) makes it more then likely that there has been enough coverage to make a restaurant notable. The Banner talk 19:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, sez you. "More than likely" are the sort of weasel words that we don't usually accept as valid here. Never mind "more than likely", how about actually finding those significant sources. The ones you have cited so far in your examples all fail GNG. Pyrope 20:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to expand a little. Plucking a poorly sourced yet famous restaurant at random, and principally because it was the first that popped into my head, let's take a look at Le Manoir aux Quat' Saisons. I'm going to do this here and not at that article's talk page because I think this should be treated as an exemplar rather than a case in isolation. Looking at the sources used so far we can see that they fall into three categories: 1) independent and significant; 2) independent but not significant; and 3) non-independent. These are listed in descending order of GNG acceptability. In the first category there is... not much. You might make a decent case that The Staff Canteen article is pretty good, but this would appear to be an industry trade communication so you are still talking about a limited and specialist audience. However, the level of coverage seems good (it talks a lot about the impact of the restaurant on the world around it and on the profession as a whole) and it would seem to be independent of the subject. It is used twice, which is a little cheeky, but that's what happens when you have a page edited by numerous people and little project oversight. Other than that there are two sources directly connected to Raymond Blanc, which fall into my third category above so they fail GNG right off the bat. In the middle there is one rather skimpy review in The Telegraph. As this mostly deals with the hotel part of the business, and then only in a mildly expanded bullet point format, although independent this also fails GNG. If this went to AfD as it stands, and based only on the sources given, you could make a very good case that with only one source that gets even close to being both significant and independent it will fail GNG as you also need to fulfill the "multiple" requirement as well. This is plainly silly, as Le Manoir has been a cornerstone and benchmark in the British restaurant pantheon for nearly three decades. Taking that as my starting point I went off and spent, ooh, five minutes on Google and turned up the following: a full page, discursive, historical and culinary entry in "Frommer's 500 Places for Food and Wine Lovers"; nearly two pages in "European Gastronomy Into the 21st Century" which, although headed as an entry on Blanc spends most of its time talking about the restaurant, its development, and its role in training new chefs; a whole chapter in "Der architekt, der koch und der Gute Geschmack" which, although my German is extremely rusty, seems to take a very long, hard look at the way the restaurant runs and operates and how they have used their building and grounds to support the production of their own fruit and vegetables; and an article in The Guardian describing Le Manoir's herb garden and discussing how it integrates with the restaurant's demands. In addition to these there are a number of lengthy feature pieces in the major British national newspapers that go far beyond the simple restaurant directory review. These are the sorts of sources that we should be using to establish notability, and I'll say again that if you can't find at least a couple like them for any given restaurant (and I'm not saying they need to be in English at all) then you really do have to question that restaurant's notability in Wikipedia terms. Pyrope 21:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, come on! Find me an article about a Michelin restaurant that is removed due to lack of notability or shut up. (not due to no sourcing or very poor sourcing, that is a valid reason to remove any article) The Banner talk 03:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, you have nothing left in the tank except WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? That's pretty pathetic. Go on then, you keep on merrily curling out turds. Arguing with somebody who simply doesn't get the basics of Wikipedia notability is fairly fruitless it seems. Pyrope 12:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, keeping on bashing Michelin starred restaurant while most people regard them notable is pretty fruitless. I guess that will only change when Michelin will start rewarding stars in Canada. The Banner talk 17:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not bashing the restaurants, just your assertion that the star confers notability. Time and time again you fly in the face of WP:GNG and WP:ORG, with only wishy-washy POV reasoning. Your argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT and is tosh. Take a look at the clause at WP:ORGSIG... that covers my argument very well indeed. Michelin stars may go some way to establishing notability, but not all restaurants holding a Michelin star are notable. Simple. And where exactly do you get off with your snobbish cultural superiority? Maybe you'll change your tune when people in the Netherlands and Ireland realise that you can make your own mind up about a restaurant instead of having to subjugate your own judgement to that of one particular set of criteria established by one single rating agency. The lack of Michelin stars in Canada is actually a very good example of why your arguments are bunk. There are plenty of good, innovative, excellent restaurants in Canada, but none that have seen fit to jump through the arbitrary and subjective hoops set up by the Michelin organisation. Find significant, reliable, third-party sources or, to quote your own line of logic, shut up. Pyrope 19:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I have never said that only Michelin starred restaurants are notable. The Michelin Guide is the most famous restaurant guide, but certainly not the only one. I am just not familiar with the restaurant guides of the USA and Canada, so I don't start writing articles about Canadian or American restaurants as they are out of my comfort zone. But again: if you think that my articles are not conform WP:GNG, why don't you nominate them for removal? Perfectly acceptable process. On my talkpage is the whole list of restaurant articles I have written, easy enough for you to nominate them all. Small detail: for the existing restaurants I use the comments of three restaurant guides: Michelin, Gault Millau and Knoopjelos.nl. Byebye. The Banner talk 20:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I support Pyrope on this. Michelin does not connote notability by fiat. It can be an indicator, but does not make it so. Also, guides of any sort are in the same boat. they do not mean the place is notable, just that they were reviewed. As for restaurant guides in North America as well as the rest of the world, none of them are more than fancy directories of restaurant locations, menu types and reviews therein.

The issue that you, Banner, need to understand is that we need more than reviews to establish the standards of notability. Guides are nothing more than directories, and it doesn't matter how famous the guide is. It is af if some one was interviewed in a news paper about something they witnessed. The interviewee isn't famous because their name appeared in print, the same goes here. Just because the place appeared in print in passing mention doesn't mean it is notable. We ate there, the menu featured such-in-such cooked by so-in-so and the food sucked/was good/was great/was phenomenal and cost $/€/₤x.xx. By the way, the review appeared in a famous book/paper/guide... does not mean the place reviewed is notable.

What we ask is that you show why a restaurant is notable beyond that reviewer's opinion of the place. Just because Gordon or Emeril or Julia worked there doesn't mean it is famous. You have a love affair with Michelin and it is well known. We just ask that you give us more to work with beyond its got three Michelin stars, its notable! --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC))

indeed, notability is not inherited. you can see this sort of thing happening all the time with music articles. a band might be notable, but that doesn't mean their albums deserve individual articles. Kaini (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The Banner, at which point have I accused you of only thinking Michelin starred restaurants are notable? You are starting to read things that aren't there. My problem with your attitude is that you seem to think that all Michelin starred restaurants are notable. They are not. Michelin may be the best known guide, but it is still only a guide. It does not offer discursive, editorial coverage, just bald ratings. And if all starred restaurants were notable then why are there so many of them for which not a single magazine or newspaper piece can be found? Why are there so many that have never once been covered on even local television or radio programs, let alone national or international? Why are so few written about in anything more than run-of-the-mill restaurant reviews? As for why I'm not going out and attacking the articles themselves, that is because the real issue at the root of the problem is you. Specifically, your fetishistic and strident obsession with Michelin stars that, in my previous experience, means any attempt at discussion with you degenerates into the sort of mess that we have above. If you think I have time to do that over and over and over and over for every badly sourced, non-notable article that you have created, then you seriously over-estimate how much free time I have in my day. Better, surely, to get to the source of the problem in one place, then see if you, who created the mess, feel like tidying up after yourself? Pyrope 23:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
i have no horse in this particular race, but i'd like to ask that both of you observe WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL a bit more - phrases or sentences like 'Go on then, you keep on merrily curling out turds', 'find me an article about a Michelin restaurant that is removed due to lack of notability or shut up', and 'fetishistic and strident obsession with Michelin stars' don't progress the discussion towards consensus in the least bit, and make both of you look bad. Kaini (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Fetishistic and strident are purely descriptive terms, and apt ones at that. Look them up. As for "curling out turds", that's called an extended metaphor, carried over from the premise of OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I couldn't come up with a politer form of words for "creating a pile of crap". My bad. Pyrope 18:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Please note that I am no longer responding to this user. Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls The Banner talk 21:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting point of view. Akin to sticking your fingers in your ears so you can't hear inconvenient truths, isn't it? Come up with a decent counter argument and perhaps you'll start earning some respect. Pyrope 03:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank goodness for Monday mornings. The Banner, you may have decided to stop responding to my perfectly valid, justified and substantiated arguments about your editing, but it seems you have taken on board the central points. Just read your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WHJG-LP. The irony is very sweet indeed. Now perhaps you could actually put your money where your mouth is and start tidying up after yourself? Pyrope 13:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Harassment? If you think that one of my restaurant articles fails WP:GNG, you can nominate it for deletion. That is more useful then just bashing me and the articles because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And with your referring to WHJG-LP: I don't hide behind a essay named "Common Outcomes" as if it is chiseled in stone. My articles are not immune for removal when you are able to convince the closing admin that an article lacks notability. The Banner talk 14:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Quite apart from the random spraying of trolling and harassment accusation smokescreens, both pretty serious smears that you have no evidence for, all the while you seem unable to actually read what I'm saying to you. The arguments that you are using at the above AfD page are exactly, precisely, identically the same to those that I'm making to you here. This is most certainly not a case of IDONTLIKEIT, it's a case of "your articles fail GNG". Simple. I have also already explained that the problem does not appear to be one or two articles, in which case I would certainly have taken them to AfD, but to a whole swathe of articles that all have you as the common denominator. I could indeed spend many hours and weeks of my time going through and nominating all the offending articles, but Wikipedia is actually a recreational activity for me, I don't get paid to clean up. As the fundamental problem is you I thought it best to start there rather than working in from the edge. If you have a fire in your basement you don't run around the garden putting out smouldering embers, do you? You go right to the heart of the fire and pour on plenty of water. As I have said before, have you any evidence for your assumption that all Michelin starred articles are notable? If so, let's have it. Pyrope 15:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
You don't need to nominate them all at the same time. One or two a week will do too. I dare you... The Banner talk 18:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
...and my point about your Michelin star assertion? Pyrope 18:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I publish when I have the idea that the article satisfies WP:GNG. Simple. The Banner talk 18:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Not really, because plainly many do not. We have been over this ground plenty of times and yet you are still only coming up with POV arguments about whether you "have the idea" about their notability. How about some proper sources that discuss the inherent notability of Michelin starred restaurants? How about some third party source that highlights the great cultural impact that all Michelin starred restaurants have on the society around them? You know, actual sources that satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ORGSIG. You seem very keen to force other people to meet those criteria, but when challenged about your own activity you are entirely unable to back it up. Pyrope 18:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
You don't challenge it. You are just whining and trolling. And because it is utter useless to have this type of discussion with you (you refuse to do anything) I go back to my earlier statement: Please note that I am no longer responding to this user. Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. The Banner talk 20:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Raising legitimate concerns is "whining" now? Yet again I note that rather than respond to those concerns you throw out unjustified and offensive accusations. I have been attempting a discussion by raising points and giving evidence for my views, you have given nothing except sarcasm and flannel. The arrogance and hypocrisy of your position here and at the above AfD is startling. I think I have proven my point. Pyrope 22:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorghum

See Talk:Sorghum#Requested_move Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Informal request for comment on Full breakfast

Hey guys - some further opinions regarding the recent addition of 'Full Cornish Breakfast' to the Full breakfast article would be much appreciated - posting here in order to get as wide a range of opinions as possible. See Talk:Full breakfast#Full Cornish Breakfast for further details. Kaini (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Archive_21&oldid=1079994764"