Talk:California Cuisine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Merril Shindler, a food critic in Southern California, actually addresses this article in his most recent article linked here. He expands on this idea and notes how some believe there is no such thing. The article also reviews a local restaurant that he believes pre-dates those mentioned who started the idea. MrMurph101 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds very interesting. Unfortunately, the article seems to have disappeared. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 06:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's disappointing. Hopefully the article will come back, but if it does not, I'll try to find it somewhere else. He was somewhat critical of this article basically saying it was incomplete. He stated that California Cuisine would mainly be considered healthy foods focusing mainly on fish and avoiding red meat. He also said that a chef from New York said there is no such thing as California Cuisine. That's what I remember but will have to find the article to find out exactly what he said. MrMurph101 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge proposed with cuisine of California
This article shares most of its content with the larger cuisine of California article. The only unique part is the two lead paragraphs. I suggest merging these two paragraphs into the larger article as a sub-section. Unless someone objects and can expand this article beyond its current stub status, I will perform this merge in 5 days. -Orayzio 15:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose merge. Whether the article is a stub or not is irrelevant. People expect that this important style of cuisine will be its own article, not subsumed as part of some larger article about foods of California. Some discussion on this article has already started, and I would expect that it will grow as time progresses, just like many other newly created stubs. Perhaps you don't mean to make your merge proposal sound like an ultimatum, but you shouldn't make demands like "unless you do such and such, I will merge the article". --Chan-Ho (Talk) 16:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see absolutely no difference (and I'd hazard to say that very few other people would either) between the articles becide the inclusion of "Burgers and fast food" (something vague as most of those can be found outside California, and probably shouldn't be included on a "cusine" page as much as it should be on a companies of California page) and a more fleshed out explanation on the "of" page of the "fusion" foods of the area (in terms of "influences"), ingredient sections are word for word. I would suggest that if they are different that you should take up the task of better defining both, so they don't apper to be the exact same thing. At the moment I'm saying merge. Radagast83 06:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Do you understand that there is an article on cuisine of an area and and another article on a famous culinary cooking style? I would wager that in fact most people would understand this from the introductions of both articles. These are different topics (albeit related somewhat), so should have separate articles. As for the overlap of content, I'm surprised that the only difference you see is that one article talks about burgers and says a little more about influences. About 50% of the California cuisine article is separate from the other article. In fact, this is the most important part as it is the part that explains what California Cuisine is and its history. This difference from the other article shouldn't be considered negligible simply because both contain a common "ingredients" section. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 06:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually the distinction between the two is pretty vague, at least to a layperson as myself. An expert probably would agree with you 100%, they'd see a distinction, but these articles are not supposed to be written for experts, they're supposed to be distinguishable for someone who would have no idea on the concepts within beforehand. In fact the first paragraphs on each say nearly the exact same things. One uses the word "fusion" (California Cuisine) while the other says that the food is a mixture of various cultures (i.e. a fusion of various cultures foods), the latter explains the fusion connection a lot more in depth further down the article and the former only later explains where the term originates (without any attribution I might add, perhaps thats the next thing to work on). I now agree they should be seperate, but they both need work to expand and need to be sourced. I'm removing the tags. Radagast83 22:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Do you understand that there is an article on cuisine of an area and and another article on a famous culinary cooking style? I would wager that in fact most people would understand this from the introductions of both articles. These are different topics (albeit related somewhat), so should have separate articles. As for the overlap of content, I'm surprised that the only difference you see is that one article talks about burgers and says a little more about influences. About 50% of the California cuisine article is separate from the other article. In fact, this is the most important part as it is the part that explains what California Cuisine is and its history. This difference from the other article shouldn't be considered negligible simply because both contain a common "ingredients" section. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 06:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I see absolutely no difference (and I'd hazard to say that very few other people would either) between the articles becide the inclusion of "Burgers and fast food" (something vague as most of those can be found outside California, and probably shouldn't be included on a "cusine" page as much as it should be on a companies of California page) and a more fleshed out explanation on the "of" page of the "fusion" foods of the area (in terms of "influences"), ingredient sections are word for word. I would suggest that if they are different that you should take up the task of better defining both, so they don't apper to be the exact same thing. At the moment I'm saying merge. Radagast83 06:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - It was discussed a few months ago to split the articles. We should let the experiment play out for a while before combining the pages again. Gentgeen 06:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
