Talk:Entremet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Middle Ages Portal Entremet is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

	Food Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Food and drink task list: 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: Food, Bread, Beef, Curry, Drink, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yoghurt, Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom) Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: , Italian cuisine, Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies, Coffee, Milk, Pasta, French cuisine, Chocolate Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Burger King Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Get rid of Trivia sections in articles you are working on. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner to food and drink related articles to help bring them to members attention. It could encourage new members to the project too. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of food Review articles currently up for GA status: Burger King legal issues, Chocolate Review articles currently up for FA status: Butter

[edit] Merge discussion: material from subtlety

Dispute on Talk:Subtlety resulted in a plea to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Dispute appeared to center on whether the material in subtlety was necessary in that article, as the dishes that could be classified as a subtlety is a subset of entremet. Because the material deleted from the subtlety article had valid sources, and that material did not exist in entremet I felt it was inappropriate to delete that content. Instead I proposed that the appropriate subtlety content be merged into entremet and the subtlety article instead redirect to entremet. Please continue that discussion here. -Amatulic 00:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is more about subtlety than entremet and, more importantly, no one has actually opposed merging content. If someone would like to add content here, they should do so without all the tedious bureaucracy.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is opposition to removing content from subtlety. The merge was suggested to preserve it in a more appropriate place, if subtlety isn't the best place for it. The mergefrom and mergeto tags I placed automatically direct discussions to this page; I have no control over that. -Amatulic 17:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely the content belongs somewhere, Amatulic has a point about that. ^(H) 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Has any of you actually realized that I removed that content because I thought it was irrelevant? You're all very eager to keep the content, but I don't see anyone explaining why.

If you want to salvage content just do it yourselves. Get cracking instead of having these pointless discussion where you refuse to motivate yourself.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored the {{Mergefrom}} tag, which invites other editors to discuss article improvements, after it was removed. The user who removed it also reduced Subtlety (again) to a near-contentless stub.

I don't know if that user understands the caveat ("By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License.") which is displayed with every Wikipedia article text box. — Athaenara ✉ 00:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you assuming some type of bad faith when I'm insisting that the material is no longer relevant? Why do you think I removed (or rewrote) it in the first place? What aspect of subtleties or entremets do you believe is missing? And why are your completely ignoring my opinions while tooting your own as consensus? And stop answering with mere bureaucratic formalities and finger-wagging. You've consistently avoided all of my relevant questions so far.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have three things to say:

• Nobody is assuming bad faith. Others have pointed you to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, which I encourage you to read it and take it to heart. Once you submit something to Wikipedia, if other editors disagree about the content you include or remove, the solution is not to engage in a reversion war or insist that the articles in question fit your personal vision. There are many other editors here with equally valid viewpoints.
• This merge discussion has one purpose only: To discuss the merits of merging relevant content from subtlety into entremet so that only one article remains. The subtlety article would contain only a redirect link to entremet. So far, the merits of such a merge have not been discussed.
• Furthermore, I don't see why you'd have a problem with such a proposal. After all, you have insisted on reducing the subtlety article to a mere definition because entremet is a broader topic. Why not go one step further and simply redirect subtlety to entremet? That's what this merge discussion should be about. -Amatulic 01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I kinda resent having the effort I've spent on these two article being characterized as a "personal vision" when I'm the only one who has contributed content based on reliable and relevant academic sources.

I'm quite convinced there's more information to be found on the subtlety and I don't see it as a problem to have a stub sitting around for a while. I'm also hesitant about sorting it under the French term that was never as specific, even if the concepts are similar. Look at the definition in OED at subtlety, for example. It's not the ideal source for culinary history, but it still appears to restricting the definition of a subtlety exclusively to sugar sculptures and table ornaments, which means that it might very well have been entirely inedible.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a disadvantage to having the Subtlety content sit around waiting for more sources while being a section of Entremet? -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 18:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter, may I ask why you archived Talk:Subtlety? I know you called it a "waste of time" in your edit summary, but what about the other participants? I tried to bring this up on your talk page but you blanked it. ^(H) 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; FINALLY we have some discussion on the merits of merging the two articles. Your points are persuasive. I also don't have a problem with a stub sitting around for a while, just as I don't have a problem with "merge" tags on both articles to foster further discussion. -Amatulic 23:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Keeping a maintenance tag around for God knows how long in an article about a topic which just about no one has taken interest in (despite many attempts on my part to get input) isn't exactly proportional to what we're trying to achieve. If you want to advertise the merger, I really suggest doing it in projects and other types of non-article space. Articles are for readers, not an insignificant minority of editors.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments: Entremet and subtlety should be merged. References should be culled to remove dead weblinks and print texts should be better identified. Efforts should be made to distinguish the historical information available from contemporary sources written by hobbyists or enthusiasts who enjoy re-enacting the medieval ages. The subset of subtleties should be described in their own section within Entremet. Unless it is redundant, content should not be removed so long as it is sourced.Professor marginalia 15:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to revive this discussion here: first off, the article doesn't reference anything written by "hobby enthusiast", but serious food scholars and professional writers. There's a link to the Gode Cookery, but they are a pretty good source or people who want to try out cooking medieval dishes, which is hardly harmful to the article.

Now, I don't know exactly where the line between an entremet and a subtlety is actually drawn, since many scholars and writers use them for almost identical concepts. I think this justifies keeping two articles until more than one person (i.e. me) actually weighs in with research, not just mere opinions. Does anyone actually have anything to add in the form of references to what scholars think?

Peter ^Isotalo 17:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not me; I lack your expertise. I don't mind keeping the two articles separate - but if they are merged, a separate article on subtlety can always be created later. I'll also point out that removing the "merge" tags will create a situation where someone else like me will come along and add them back again, because as the two articles stand, they look like they should be merged. -Amatulic 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)