I agree. However, I think, when faced with an article consisting solely of a recipe, the answer is not, as it historically has been, to delete the article or move it to Wikibooks, but rather to write the rest of the article.
A recipe article is basically a food stub article.
-Snowspinner
On Jan 22, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
Perhaps. I haven't entirely made up my mind on that.
But I do definitely think that we should have no articles consisting solely of a recipe.
Mark
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:46:20 -0800, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:40:51 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
But the thing with a recipie is that there are infinite possibilities, and different people make it different ways. As I said before, we should describe what makes it what it is and how it is made, but be vague enough that we include every possibility for that food. This isn't a recipie.
On the other hand, we can ILLUSTRATE with sample recipes, just as we can illustrate with sample photographs. Sometimes vagueness is too vague; sometimes what is needed is a specific as an example. So long as we note that variations do exist and this is just an example, we're fine. Just as we illustrate, say, an article on Persian cats with a picture of a specific cat; we do have to point out the possible variations and that this is just an example, not the definition.
-Matt (User:Morven)
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l