Talk:Cuisine of Austria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Translation from the German
- Article: de:Österreichische Küche
- Corresponding English-language article: Austrian cuisine
- Worth doing because: a lot of
- Originally Requested by:--Sheynhertz-Unbayg 08:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Status: Pretty much done - might benefit from a polishing Valiantis 22:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Other notes:
As per the request on Wikipedia:Translation into English I've translated the text from de:Österreichische Küche and incorporated it into this article. I've moved info from the previous English version where it wasn't included in the German-language article (e.g. the info on Danish pastry and Grüner Veltliner) and incorporated it at what seemed the most relevant points in the article. I also included info from de:Wiener Küche and de:Wiener Kaffeehaus. The translation still reads a little stiffly in a couple of places, so any polishing would be appreciated. Valiantis 22:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Move
Okay, I hope someone is watching this page. I propose to move this to Cuisine of Austria, its proper name. The adjective form (Austrian) shouldn't come first, and the convention is almost always to have it this way. Objections? --Dmcdevit 01:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- This does appear to be the convention, though I can't think why as the phrase Cuisine of XXXX strikes me as a rather stilted and unnatural formation. However,as other cuisine articles take this form, then I have no objections. Valiantis 13:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- The reason we always put the noun form first is to avoid irregular consructions. So, let's say I want Cote d'Ivoire's cuisine, would I know how to construct Ivorian? Or Congo --> Congolese, or Equatorial Guinea --> Equatoguineans, or Kiribati --> Gilbertese, or Myanmar --> Burmese, you get the idea. Putting Cuisine of X allows someone with minimal knowledge to search and find the article. While Austrian is a regular construction, it should be moved for consistency's sake. --Dmcdevit 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- No-one else had any comments re: moving the page so I've finally got round to doing so. Valiantis 13:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Jooler moved this page back to Austrian Cuisine citing the following reason in the edit summary box: - Cuisine of Austria moved to Austrian cuisine: Food styles are cultural not territorial and can be found outside of the geopgraical limits imposed by using the title "Cuisine of ...". I have moved it back to Cuisine of Austria. I don't dispute that food styles are cultural, but I think the logic of Dmcdevit's argument wins out. This is in fact an extension of the policies at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives). In addition, the actual content of the article is (currently) about the cuisine of the country of Austria. If the content changes to be predominantly about "Austrian-style" cuisine - if such a thing exists - then a new name might be appropriate, but again one that avoids adjectival usage if possible. Valiantis 16:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Mühlviertel
The Mühlviertel is not in Lower Austria but in Upper Austria. Either someone mistook the region the linseed oil comes from (could be Waldviertel, Weinviertel, Mostviertel; all those are in Lower Austria) or the speciality was put in the wrong state of austria. I don't know what is the right solution so I don't want to change the article right now. --Wirthi 20:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- This apparent error was in the original German text. I did notice it, but lacked sufficient specialist knowledge to say if this really was an error. My suspicion is that the the intention was that Leinerdäpfel is a Lower Austrian dish but uses Upper Austrian linseed oil, but I don't know enough on the subject to be sure. On reflection I'm removing the apparent error. Valiantis 13:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Salzburger Nockerln
I think I have a picture of the Salzburger Nockerln, but I'm not sure. I know I got it in Salzburg and it was supposed to be a regional specialty. I've gone ahead and put it up on the main page, but can anyone verify that I am correct? Thanks. Asiir 17:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. --Franz Xaver 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)