Talk:List of recipes/Delete

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Use this page for the discussion of whether recipes should be deleted, either generally, or in terms of a specific one to be deleted.

Contents

Original discussion

  • Absolutely everything on List of recipes. Move to wikibooks. There's already a discussion on the talk page there about whether recipes belong in Wikipedia, we should decide one way or the other. Note: I haven't put VFD tags on all the recipes yet. moink 20:30, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. List each individually, as some are obvious wikibooks cases (all those sauces), some obvious encyclopedic cases, and probably plenty debateable ones. All those "cuisine of X" articles belong in the wikipedia, and Sushi is entirely encyclopedic (and an excellent article to boot). -- Finlay McWalter 20:41, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Hmmmm... good point on sushi. I still think we need to decide whether or not recipes (not encyclopedic descriptions like sushi) belong in Wikipedia. moink 20:46, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Recipes, like all HOW TOs, belong in the appropriate wikibook. A summary description of the contents of a dish (e.g. "sauerkraut contains cabbage...", "it's the adrenalin that makes veal taste so good")) belongs in the "cuisine of..." article, but individual dishes should be in wikibooks. Classes of food (sushi, pasta, ...) deserve their own article, again with how to links off to wikibooks). This whole enterprise sounds like a "pages needing attention" project.-- Finlay McWalter 20:52, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Ok, on Finlay's advice I will list recipes individually. We begin with the Albanian ones, all copied with permission from the same cookbook: Albanian vegetable pie, Baked lamb and yogurt, Baked leeks, Bean Jahni soup, Elli's veal or chicken with walnuts, Fërgesë of Tirana with peppers, Fërgesë of Tirana with veal, Fried meatballs, Garlic dressings, Mixed vegetables, Potato and cabbage soup, Stewed dry figs dessert, Veal with large lima beans moink 20:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The plan is to move all the recipes to the Wikibook cookbook. I already moved the Vegan recipes and pruned the list here considerably. The problem is that we can't move the page histories yet. Still, I vote to move them to Wikibooks and delete here. Danny 21:03, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • And on that topic how do we feel about the majority of the articles on the howto page? Isn't there a wikibook for these kinds of things? Is this encyclopedic? moink 20:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • (no vote) might I suggest deferring them until the recipe monster (and the numbers monster) is slain?
    • IMO, some definitely are encyclopedic and some maybe are not (and some I have not yet looked at). I vote to deal with them case by case rather than attempting to decide on them as a class. Rossami 22:04, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep unless every recipe in the Wikipedia is removed, which I don't think should be done. They're needed for the Cuisine of Albania article. Dori | Talk 00:59, Dec 28, 2003 (UTC)
      • The idea is not to delete the recipes but to move them to Wikibooks. The article on Albanian cuisine can link to there. All the other recipes will also be moved. Danny 01:02, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I don't see any of the other recipes being listed for deletion. Unless they're all deleted, I see this as discriminatory and not as policy. I think a vote on all the recipes is needed, and they all need to be listed for deletion together. Dori | Talk 01:09, Dec 28, 2003 (UTC)
          • I pruned the list of recipes a few days ago, taking out all the empty links. If you look at December 23, you will see that I began moving recipes as well. I started at the bottom with the Vegan recipes. Someone else started at the top with the Albanian recipes. Eventually, they will all be moved. We are just doing it a bit at a time. Danny 01:12, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Good idea. I moved a bunch over to Wikibooks before Xmas from previous listings here (soups, sauces) - Marshman 20:09, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please do keep the encyclopedic portions of articles, though (I'm sure you will). For example, some of Caesar salad seems suitable. Perhaps we can split list of recipes into articles that will be kept roughly as is, articles where part of the material will be moved, and articles which will be completely moved? Martin 19:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, some of the dishes listed here are part of culture and not just foodstuff and they are often mentioned in texts. They need at least a short explanation ('though exact recipes do not necessarily belong to wikipedia).Halibutt 09:21, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am still opposed to moving the recipes from Wikipedia, however if it is decided to do so, whoever does it better do it properly. All the recipes will have to be moved, all the links in Wikipedia will have to be updated, the histories should be mentioned on the talk pages of the corresponding Wikibook pages, etc. Dori | Talk 20:04, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

I agree on that recepies belong in wikibooks. I disagree on that they don't belong in Wikipedia. I think they should be kept AND copied. BL 06:08, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipe? - Arthur George Carrick 23:34, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising the Wikipedia by deleting example recipes of various cuisine styles just because the recipies are useful to another wikiproject. We don't need to have every recipe in the encyclopedia but this doesn't come remotely close to being more than a sampling of some common recipes. Jamesday 00:06, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I think we shoould keep most of the recipe and How-To articles in both. I don't see how an article on a dish with only a list of ingredients is any different from the many articles we have on actors that only contain a list of the movies they have been in. - SimonP 02:31, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

The recipe articles are telling the reader how to do something, whereas the actor biographies are telling the reader factual, verifiable information about something, thus the fundamental difference. Wikipedia telling the reader the one true way to do something is a violation of our NPOV policy, unless every different variation is included with a description of why and how the variation came to be; but telling someone how to do something is right in line with the vision of wikibooks as a textbook repository. Important cullinary items should have a wikipedia article, eg. sushi and apple pie, but any recipes should go over to wikibooks. It's not very hard to include an interwiki link in an article about Pumpkin pie, for example, by saying, "an example of a pumpkin pie recipe can be found at the Wikimedia Cookbook. Gentgeen 11:19, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It sounds as though you misunderstand what NPOV means. It does not mean that examples may not be used. It does suggest that simply selecting an example should not endorse that particular example as best. It's merely an example, one of many possible examples. You may also be forgetting that the Wikipedia and the cookbook are different works and it is not a safe assumption that anyone with a Wikipedia CD has the wikibooks available. That's a very tempting assumption when we're writing online but online isn't the sole goal and those interwikii links are useless if your school with no internet connection doesn't have a way to use them. Jamesday 21:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in the Wikipedia talk namespace? - Arthur George Carrick 01:44, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Value?

Karen. Cooking recipee have an encyclopedic value. If not for you, there is encyclopedic value for some cultures. The fact there is another wikiproject where you would like recipees to be visible, is not a valid argument to entirely strip this encyclopedia from all its recipee. I might understand that we do not become a whole repository of all the recipee in the world, but at least could not we preserve part of the information ?

Each time you move information there, we lose information

  1. we lose access to the information, since there is not even a link preserved to wikibook. That means, here, the information is just plain lost. Note that since the page is deleted, that means it is very likely a new author will come one day to create a new article on the topic, hence duplicating the work load. Note as well, that deleting the article is likely to be offending the author of the article, who will not find *any* reference to it
  2. you also break all the international references, since other wikipedias consider recipees valid information. We do not have link to refer to
  3. we lose links to typical recipees that are examples of a cooking style or cooking techniques. This is another loss
  4. we lose very interesting google hits which would attract women, and mothers.
  5. we deceive travellers, who very likely would like to read about famous dishes.

All to say, I would like to discuss with you the fact recipees are deleted from this place. I am absolutely unfavorable to such a scheme. I would be please to hear counter arguments.

Proposition :

  1. keep here famous recipees, or those relevant to a technic, or style of cooking
  2. let's not delete pages, but rather do a redirect over there, or better put a link in the page, to preserve information and international links
  3. Otherwise, well, I will put some advertisement on all french cooking recipee I think relevant, such ratatouille.

Anthère0 12:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Discussion moved from village pump

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:village pump by HappyDog 16:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC), and then moved again by IMSoP 19:52, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Though I am sure I will speak in a deep void, I will just state that it is utterly ridiculous to remove recipees from encyclopedia; And it is not because there is a book somewhere to hold these recipees, that they should disappear from here. You people probably only eat plastic steaks and aspartam coca cola if you are able to realise that food in part of culture in some countries, and that understanding how people eat, how they prepare food, what they eat is cultural, not just a plain stupid recipee to hide in a book. Do not expect to ever understand some cultures, such as the french one in doing so.

Anthère0 11:38, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The wikipedian with the most aggressive appearance decides.
--Ruhrjung 11:48, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we're advocating removing articles on food, just recipes. For example, turkey (food) used to be a recipe for cooking turkey, but it has now been turned into a very encyclopedic non-recipe article. Explaining food, its uses, its cultural connotations, etc., is encyclopedic, but things like "2 cups sugar; bake in the oven at 350 degrees for 18-22 minutes" aren't. --Delirium 12:25, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

A recipee is

  1. interesting and might bring us women and mothers
  2. often those recipee reported are typical of a certain way of life or culture. Removing them on the motive there is not enough information on the cultural background is like advocating removal of stubs.
  3. Often, those recipees are examples of cooking technics or style. These are relevant examples
  4. People will look for them, and won't find anything. Worse, they will write again the same recipee
  5. the fact food is encyclopedic while typical recipees are not are ONE POV
  6. You break all the international links in doing so.

Anthère0


And the recipe portion shouldn't have been deleted because it was a single example of a recipe for that food dish, not a cookbook full of them. The encyclopedia should have comprehensive coverage of food styles around the world, including a selection of recipes to illustrate them. That's in part because they vary depending on the local climate and agriculture, as well as the general culture. Those examples and styles should should link to the cookbook for a more comprehensive selection of recipes and the cookbook itself should have the exhausitve selection of recipes. At the moment, those creating the new cookbook have been too enthusiastic in deleting recipe examples, without due regard to what the encyclopedia needs for it's coverage. Jamesday

Food articles should have something like "please see wikibook link here for a list or recipes involving this food" That way we keep it in the family and keep the article traditionally enclopedic theresa knott 12:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's not in the family if you don't have an internet connection available. Remember that our audience includes such things as paper and CD distributions to places which are not as well connected as we are. Note for example the South African school which recently asked on the mailing list about making a local mirror so it would have the encyclopedia available offline. That audience needs the examples in the work they have available, not out of reach in another. Jamesday 21:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I remember being taught in English lessons that any piece of writing can hove one of 4 primary purposes: to entertain, to persuade, to inform or to instruct. Unlike, say, everything2 or to some extent h2g2, Wikipedia has not set out to be a complete compendium of knowledge - it aims to create an encyclopedia. As such, its primary purpose (arguably) is to inform. Recipes - and other how-tos - are instead intended to instruct. So while we should seek to have information on foods and ways of eating, we should not (by that reasoning) include instructions on how to make them. You are by no means the only one who feels the project would benefit from a wider goal, but if information is our aim, instruction isn't. - IMSoP 13:00, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree with all that IMSoP has said above. There is an opportunity here, though. Wikicuisine - a wiki of recipes - Gaz 13:20, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"As [an encyclopedia], its primary purpose (arguably) is to inform." --IMSoP Oh? The very word encyclopedia derived from "cyclo," encompassing, and "paideia," to instruct. An encyclopedia is something that is intended to comprise the elements of a general course of education. I don't know what the past history of Wikipedia's self-assumed mission is, but an encyclopedia is instructional. That's what the word means: something that will teach you about anything. Dpbsmith P. S. I'm not sure of the source of the apparent consensus that recipes should be moved to wikibooks, but I do not see anything in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that excludes a) recipes, b) instructional material, or c) how-to articles. The original Encyclopaedia Britannica's mission was supposed to be utility, and the increasing scholarliness of the revisions up to the 11th did not change that. 14:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think wikipedia should have articles about specific dishes when there's something cultural to say about them - so all the "cuisine of France" articles should be kept if they describe the food and place it in context (not (1) preheat the oven, sort of thing - a link to a recipe book/wikibook should be included if we have one though). As another example, (the stubby) Shortbread isn't a recipe, but it tells you the main ingredients and how it is cooked which is necessary in order to describe something closely linked to the cultural identity of Scotland to people who have never heard of it. fabiform | talk 14:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I completly agree with fabiform, but this discussion is taking place/should take place at Talk:List of recipes/Delete. Gentgeen 16:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

End of moved discussion

Well, wherever the discussion is, I think recipes are valid in an encyclopedia. WormRunner 17:05, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with including recipes in Wikipedia proper is that recipes don't really fit in with the kind of model for knowledge used in the rest of wikipedia. The details of exact quantities and choices of ingredients and order of preparing them are all kind of subjective and could lead to endless edit wars over whose recipe is "right". It's not the kind of thing that can be easily settled by referring to other reference works. Therefore, I don't think that detailed recipes of the kind you can follow should go in the wikipedia.

However, I think the tendency to delete all articles that refer to the preparation of food is misguided, and Anthère's objections are not unfounded. Information about culturally important dishes, including their ingredients and methods of preparation certainly have a place in the wikipedia.

Suggested policy on recipes

  1. Culturally significant dishes should have articles on Wikipedia. Barbecue sauce is appropriate, as is Ratatouille, but Elli's veal or chicken with walnuts is not.
  2. Besides background information about a dish, articles about dishes can describe the ingredients and basic cooking methods of a dish. However, precise amounts of ingredients and step-by-step instructions are not appropriate.
  3. Where recipes do exist in the Wikibook Cookbook, there should be links on the Wikipedia article about the dish to the recipe.

As an example of an article which I think follows this policy, see Guacamole --Nohat 20:16, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me, and harmonious with the policy on algorithms. After all, we're not interested in including arbitrary non-significant pieces of computer code. -- Jmabel 20:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I also think that is reasonable, though I would add that it is appropriate in article on a food plant to include some instructions on preparation, as in Stinging nettle. -- WormRunner 21:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I like this general policy and I also think that the guacamole and stinging nettle examples deal appropriately with ingredients and preparation. Elf 21:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


I agree with this Nohat. But I also add that I wish that recipees are not necessarily removed from Wikipedia. They may be copied there, but kept here as well. - SweetLittleFluffyThing

I also agree with the policy. It describes what I've been doing for a few weeks now. Gentgeen

Anthere, changing your comments later to make it look like I agree with you is kinda sneeky, don't you think? Gentgeen
oh, sorry gentgeen, really, I had not realised :-( It looks like you are commenting Nohat proposal, not my comment. Feel free to change your comment if necessary. I did not mean to cheat. Apology. SweetLittleFluffyThing

It does not describe what has been done at coq au Vin, nor at ratatouille, nor at crepe. I suppose the policy applied only to certain areas, not to all then :-) ant

I don't know, I didn't do those moves. I moved all the American, British, and Chinese recipes. Find a recipe you disagree with from those and I'll discuss it with you. Gentgeen
If you say so, I suppose the moves are ok. So, I can perhaps conclude that all recipees were properly moved, but the french ones, which were either utterly deleted, or left with no links at all. In such case, our issue here is not one of policy but one of discrimination. I hope not :-) Seriously, the rules above fit me well, as long as they are respected. And these were not on some french recipee articles. That is all I mean to say. I hope it would be best that we generally agree on what to do. Ant
I doubt that any motive of discrimination was present. The French recipes were the first that Karen attempted to move, and she made a few decisions differently than I would have. If you'd like I can attempt to guide her, so that such errors are not made in the future. We've only got dozens of cuisines yet to go, and I'm not going to tell someone to stop helping. This is more work than it seems like. Gentgeen
Yes, please do. Ant

I disagree because it assumes that the other works are always available and excludes a significant part of our target audience, those in places without inexpensive, full time, ubiquitous internet connections. The examples within the encyclopedia are required to properly serve that audience. Jamesday 21:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the policy. I would not have written a very different one. --FvdP 19:16, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Counterproposal

  1. Recepies should not be the topic of articles, unless extravagant circumstances. That would rule out BL's recipe for meatballs and pasta but retain legendary recipes such as Elvis' recipe for peanut and jam sandwiches.
  2. Dishes should be the topic of articles. In those articles there must be a set of instructions detailed enough, so that a laymen can prepare the dish. If there are multiple ways to prepare that dish, multiple set of instructions, each of which has been published somewhere else or is otherwise verifiable, must be included.
  3. The instruction sets in the articles about dishes must be executable by the amateur. Therefore the primitive instructions must be well documented in articles about them. For examples, see boiling potatoes, Steaming potatoes and so on.
  4. It should be recognized that Wikipedia, Wikibooks and tangentially, Wiktionary are separate, standalone products and that establishing dependancies between them will cause problems when either one of them sees print or is otherwise transferred from its current location.

BL 02:05, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - provides encyclopedic coverage here while the cookbook provides the exhaustive coverage, which is just how things should be split. Jamesday 11:47, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This moving recipes policy is becoming a bit user unfriendly

I'm not sure about all this moving recipes bit. Let's say I'm a new mum wanting to know how to cook my very first roast turkey. I've heard of wikipedia, so I'll try that. So I
  1. load up the main page, type in roast turkey, and press go.
  2. arrive at page which says no wiki page exists, so press google search
  3. first result is List of Recipes - Wikipedia. click on it
  4. list revealed. scroll down to Roasted brined turkey in the American cuisine entry.
  5. the page says the recipe has been removed to wikibooks. However, Roasted brine turkey is shown to be linked. Click on it
  6. empty page appears, headed Editing roasted brined turkey
I'm not sure how all of this is meant to work but it seems to me some urgent tweaking is needed. If Step 1 above can't go straight to the wikibooks turkey entry then the recipe should be printed at Step 6. And if that is the case, what's the point in moving recipes in the first place? Moriori 21:59, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Why would you look for a roast turkey recipe in an encyclopedia? Does the Britannica print roast turkey recipes that you would expect to find it here? Have you checked the Websters Dictionary? - Texture 23:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re your first question, I would look in an encyclopedia because, as someone wrote (above) the very word encyclopedia 'derived from "cyclo," encompassing, and "paideia," to instruct'. Re your second question, I hope we all aspire to make wikipedia better than Brittanica. Re your third question, what has dictionary got to do with my point?. I demonstrated that google sent me to wikipedia, but wikipedia couldn't deliver. You did not address my points, but instead asked three irrelevant questions. I would preferred to have read that something is being done about the anomaly I mentioned Moriori 02:15, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
Britannica used to publish a seperate encyclopedia on cooking. Also one on animals, and probably other topics as well. I'm not sure if they still do. 220.253.110.103 23:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC) this comment is nearly 2 years after the discussion.

Moriori, I think from a practical standpoint you are right. Searches should work accross wikis. I can't find any discussion on this point with a quick google search for "search across wikis" and "interwiki search". Anyone?

As for your other points, do you think Wikibooks:Cookbook has any purpose? Or is it just the way that it works now that bothers you? Mr. Jones 16:14, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are links being updated?

I'll say this once again, when recipes are moved to Wikibooks, are links in Wikipedia being updated by those doing the deleting? If not I would consider that borderline vandalism. Dori | Talk 16:24, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

short answer, no. We want to encourage people to write an article about a recipe here at en:, it's history, cultural significance, ect. If such an article is written, than a link to the recipe, as a clearly marked external link or sister project link, is encouraged, even appriciated by Wikibooks:Cookbook.
So where previously there was content, now there won't even be a link to where you might find the content. I find this to be a real loss of information. Dori | Talk 21:46, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
Read m:transwiki for the process these moves are supposed to be following. Under that procedure, links to the page's new home are kept at the Transwiki log. If only a part of the article is moved (for example Pumpkin pie) then yes, a link is generally made to the recipe's new home inside the article. In the past, some recipes were moved via copy-paste from the old home to wikibooks with the en: location made into an interwiki redirect, which I think is worse than having no link at all.Gentgeen
The process doesn't have anything to do with the policy though. That's a howto on moving pages. On a case by case basis, you have to consider the disruption and the loss of information that moving an article will cause. And IMO, if you're the one doing the move, thus affecting the loss, you should be the one to fix up the links to make sure that people still are able to find the information. For things like dictionary definitions this is not a big deal, but in the case of recipes they are part of the culture of people and nations, and as such they are important to an encyclopedia. Now, people argue that an encyclopedia should not tell people how to do something, and that's fine, I can deal with that. However, if by doing so you are degrading the state of other articles, then that's not OK by me. That's what I am trying to say, and that's why I am insisting that people either not move articles with cultural value, or if they do move them, they also fix up the links so that viewers will be able to find the previous info with minimal effort. Dori | Talk 21:46, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Here are the policies that I think apply to recipes. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, under what Wikipedia articles are not, #10, Wikipedia articles are not primary research. Additionally, old recipes copied from cookbooks no longer under copyright are excluded by the folowoing policy, Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. The recipe is a primary source, so use it to write about the dish. In my opinion, all recipes should be removed from en:Wikipedia as primary research or copies of primary sources. However, we have this very nice sister project, Wikibooks that has found a use for recipes, as a part of the Wikibooks:Cookbook, so we should save the content and move it over there, and make as many links to it as possible. Gentgeen 00:32, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A recipe which is original probably shouldn't be here - it wouldn't be verifiable unless it was a minor variation of a well known cultural or celebrity or whatever recipe. Recipes are sets of instructions rather than copies of primary sources. Practice is that each wiki work is independent of the others, so each can stand alone, though they do link sometimes as additional information - and all of the recipes in the encyclopedia should link to the cookbook for more examples, just as the cookbook should link to the encyclopedia for information on country and culture. Jamesday 19:39, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Request for comment

I've listed this page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, as I feel this discussion needs to include the entire community, not just those who know about it right now. By removing the recipe entries at VfD the largest portion of the community will be effectivly kept out of the discussion. Gentgeen 19:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

    • That's fine, although there is a link at the very start of VfD pointing out that this page exists. -- Graham :) 21:42, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Individual pages VfD

  • Crotopo soup. Moved to Wikibooks. Angela. 23:14, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Recepies are encyclopedic. BL 10:43, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete.--Jiang
    • Delete, unless encyclopedic background is added. Recipes belong at Wikibooks. -- Seth Ilys 16:42, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, recipes belong at wikibooks, no encyclopedic content.Gentgeen 23:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 00:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this one - it doesn't seem to be a useful example. Jamesday 20:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ratatouille (recipe only, no text) - transwikied to wikibooks KJ 09:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is a traditionnal recipee, that some users might look for . It is very typical of provencal cuisine. It has encyclopedic value. Anthère0
    • Keep, but move the recipe anyway - Suggestion: rite about how the ingredients of the recipe are typical of Provencal cuisine, cultural significance, &/c, and link to the recipe at Wikibooks? Dysprosia 12:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 14:28, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote. What's the source of the apparent consensus that recipes do not belong in Wikipedia? As I remarked in the Village Pump, there's nothing in Wikipedia:What_wikipedia_is_not that excludes a) recipes, b) instructional material, or c) how-to articles. And the very word Encyclopedia derives from paideia, instructional. If there's really a clear policy that recipes don't belong I'd like to see the pointer to it. Otherwise, I am tempted to vote to keep recipes. Dpbsmith 14:53, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Recipies are generally POV. You have to pick the best ingredients, and the best quantities, and stick to it. Anthony DiPierro 20:51, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • My grandmother taught me how to make Clam Chowder. My grandmother couldn't possibly be wrong, so My grandmother's recipe is the ONLY one that can be in Wikipedia. Any possiblilty of NPOV violation for having recipes yet? Gentgeen 00:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • NPOV is not the elimination of disagreements between contributors. Before arguing about whether your grandmother's recipe should be included, I'd simply ask you to provide the source from which I can verify the information. At that point, it probably vanishes from consideration. I trust that Wikipedia contributors are able to select one or two examples to use without any more disagreeing than is usual, particularly once all of the unverifiable family recipe claims are eliminated. Jamesday 21:36, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I would advocate that any dish which is covered in any of the major culinary encyclopedias, like the Larousse Gastronomique is valid for inclusion at Wikipedia. --Nohat 18:44, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
    • Keep the current stub, but a recipe needs to stay at wikibooks. Gentgeen 18:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I would be against any recipe, so my vote does not count. AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • In the current, stubbified form, keep. Andre Engels 13:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Definitely keep. It's a significant french dish and the current article contents are encyclopedic. I'm agnostic about including a particular recipe in the article though. --FvdP 21:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 21:36, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, including at least one example recipe. Jamesday 20:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Le Tourin (recipe) - transwikified to wikibooks KJ 09:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I oppose this page been plainly deleted. Anthère0
    • Keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 14:28, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 21:36, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as an example of a western european soup recipe. Jamesday 20:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Did you add the link of how to cook oysters in the oyster article ? ant
Yes - Ext links to WikiBooks from both oyster and pasta. Davodd 19:35, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
good, thanks ant.
  • Sekihan Recipe. Mrdice 10:10, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
    • wikibooks and delete -- Graham :) 13:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but only the first two paragraphs (until "...celebrate something"). Andre Engels 13:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 16:11, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, and please preserve the link to the recipee, just do not make the recipee information disappear. Anthère0
    • Keep the article on this traditional dish, complete with the example recipe, as an example of this cooking style. Jamesday 20:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the article, move the recipe, and link to the recipe's new home at wikibooks. I'll probibly do this right now. Gentgeen 22:08, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the article on this traditional dish, complete with the example recipe, as an example of this cooking style. Anthère0
  • Vangibhat - Recipe only, no encyclopedic content. Has been transwikied to Wikibooks. Gentgeen 19:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - since moved to wikibooks - Texture 19:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 21:30, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, including recipe, as an example of Indian cooking style. Jamesday 20:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, including recipe, as an example of Indian cooking style. Anthère0
  • Masaledaar chole - Recipe only. No encyclopedic content. Has been transwikied to wikibooks. Gentgeen 19:21, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - since moved to wikibooks - Texture 19:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 21:30, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, including recipe, as an example of Indian cooking style. Jamesday 20:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, including recipe, as an example of Indian cooking style.Anthère0
  • Baked lamb and yogurt - recipe in transwiki to Wikibooks. Davodd 19:48, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 20:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, including recipe, as an example of Albanian cooking style. Jamesday 20:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep from me of course, but I'm especially biased on this case. Dori | Talk 21:38, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, including recipe, as an example of Albanian cooking style. Anthère0
    • Delete, primary research, gives no indication of why I should know anything about this dish. Gentgeen 08:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • See this Google search result [1]. The cached result for www.frosina.org/recipes/bakedlambyog.shtml shows this recipe and says that it is from the book "Best of Albanian Cooking by Klementina and R. John Hysa". That rules out the primary research argument. At the time you wrote your comment, the start of the article said "Baked lamb and yogurt, Tavë Kosi, is an Albanian recipe for lamb" and the See Also section referred people to Albanian cuisine and Culture of Albania, so there appears to be ample context indicating that this recipe exists because it's related to both the culture and cooking style of Albania, apart from those articles to avoid duplication. You're perhaps unfamiliar with the terrain of Albania, which favors sheep for meat and goats for milk, hence this traditional lamb and yogurt dish, which illustrates the effect of that terrain on the cooking style? Jamesday 19:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • If this is the case then perhaps you should add such information to the article! I see no reason to keep it as a recipe on it's own, but if you think it is significant then put that in the article and I might reconsider. (That's a vote to remove by the way) --HappyDog 15:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


10 March 2004

Rice cooker techniques

  • Delete or transwiki the recipes to Wikibooks. Not encyclopedic. -- Seth Ilys 22:44, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopedic - Texture 23:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks. (and leave a link somewhere - don't just remove all trace)Secretlondon 23:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • move and delete--Jiang
  • Delete. Transwikiing done, made a link to the techniques page at wikibooks from Rice cooker. Just now added transwiki vfd notices, no vfd notices before now. Gentgeen 11:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rice an' Peas

  • Delete or transwiki the recipes to Wikibooks. Not encyclopedic. -- Seth Ilys 22:44, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopedic - Texture 23:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks. (and leave a link somewhere - don't just remove all trace)Secretlondon 23:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • move and delete--Jiang
  • Delete. Transwikiing done, made a link to the techniques page at wikibooks from Rice cooker. Just now added transwiki vfd notices, no vfd notices before now. Gentgeen 11:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pandora Feast

  • Delete or transwiki the recipes to Wikibooks. Not encyclopedic. -- Seth Ilys 22:44, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopedic - Texture 23:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks. (and leave a link somewhere - don't just remove all trace)Secretlondon 23:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • move and delete--Jiang
  • Delete. Transwikiing done, made a link to the techniques page at wikibooks from Rice cooker. Just now added transwiki vfd notices, no vfd notices before now. Gentgeen 11:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


What possible harm can it do to have recipes here? I say keep them all! GrahamN 07:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The harm is that they are not encyclopedic. If I click on a link to a food article, I want to see a food article, something that tells me what it is, where it's from, and why someone considers it important. That information is not included in a recipe. All I get is "add 800g flour to 1kg sugar", and I'm left to wonder why I should know that. If it even said "this item is traditionally made from sugar and flour, and was considered a festival and holiday dish by the Fooites", I'd have some understanding of why I'd want to know what it is. In my opinion, a recipe is worse than a stub, because at least people will work on a stub, whereas a recipe seems like a complete page and won't generate any interest in turning into an article.
Additionally, the idea that we generate more interest in Wikipedia by including recipes is not supported by data. Not a single recipe is included in the m:Pages from English Wikipedia with more than 1000 hits in Feb 2004; however, the Wikibooks:Cookbook has been linked at slashdot atleast twice in the last 2 weeks in discussions about finding recipes on the net, while wikipedia got no mentions in those threads. It seems clear that it is already considered that wikibooks is the most logical wikimedia home for recipes by the general internet community. Gentgeen 06:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If it even said "this item is traditionally made from sugar and flour, and was considered a festival and holiday dish by the Fooites", I'd have some understanding of why I'd want to know what it is. I wouldn't want to use an encyclopedia that determines for me what's good to know, and what isn't. I make the decision of why I want to know something, not the encyclopedia, and not the author of the article. An article that says a dish is made from sugar and flour, is missing something, even if it accurately describes the history of the dish. An article that just gives the recipies, but omits all other facts regarding the dish is missing something as well. If I read about a dish, I also want to know how it's prepared, and only mentioning it contains sugar and flour just doesn't do it. Abigail 10:51, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Your claim that the Wikipedia got no recipe mentions in Slashdot is inaccurate. Wikipedia's List of recipes was referenced at Slashdot on 6 March 2004 [2]. The cooking topics List of recipes, Gelatin, French cuisine and Wine feature in that list of the topics with more than 1,000 hits in Feb 2004. French cuisine links to many examples of the cooking style and its regional variations, though many have been deleted. Of the French Chusine recipes which do exist, here are the hits for Feb:

  • 352 Coq au Vin
  • 149 Ratatouille
  • 131 Crème brûlée
  • 98 Chocolate Mousse
  • 87 Crêpes
  • 81 Foie gras
  • 55 Quiche lorraine
  • 23 Raclette

It isn't surprising to me that after months of systematic work, much by you, to remove recipes from the Wikipedia, trying to direct people to the cookbook project instead, the recipes here aren't getting more hits. Particularly unsurprising that people looking for recipes don't go to the Wikipedia article when the list of recipes sends them to the cookbook instead of the Wikipedia article. It should be sending them to the article for an overview and sample recipe and from there to the cookbook for more comprehensive coverage, including many alternative recipes.

The Wikipedia needs comprehensive coveage of cookig topics, including example recipes. You're right that the cookbook should be the primary recipe resource but wrong that it requires deleting recipes from the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia needs comprehensive coverage of the topic, just as it does for every other topic. It's not a "here or there" choice, it's "encyclopedia for overview and examples and cookbook for completely exhaustive coverage". Except that you're working on deleting the encyclopedic coverage and examples here, which isn't a good service to the encyclopedia. Jamesday 11:44, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A simple way to handle recipes

If a food is a basic food type which has to be created from a list of ingredients - ie: bread, batter, certain sauces, American biscuit, doughnuts, pancakes and so on, then the basic recipe should appear in the article.

But if the food is a varient - ie: cheesy bread, beer batter, chocolate chip cookies, chicken chasseur and so on, then these are not basic foods but are variants and their recipes belong in the cookbook.

This way a limited number of recipes could legitimately appear in the encyclopedia.

I will mention a few other basic foods that ought to have the recipe included: cheesecake, dumplings, lemon curd... Each of these are basic types that have many variations, but all of which stem (on the whole) from a single basic recipe.

The only problem remaining if this is agreed, is deciding on which recipe is the defining basic recipe for a certain food. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 17 May 2006 (talk • contribs) 66.82.9.61.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_recipes_Delete_c876.html"