So some of you say: a recipe is not part of culture and has nothing to do with encyclopedias .... hmmmm ...
So maybe you can tell me what these links and sublinks have to do with "culture" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_television_channels many of them are private and therefore this could be considered publicity - or not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_videos_played_on_MTV_Jams this is 100% encyclopedic content as it seems - more "culture" than a recipe ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Episode_lists and this would be than a must for culture, right???
I could go ahead with lots and lots of categories/links that make up wikipedia - if these articles are there someone is interested in it - if recipes are there someone is interested in it - so who we are to decide what is interesting for people and what not what they search on wikipedia and what not? I just don't read what is not interesting for me (and I maybe don't consider as encyclopedic content), but maybe you read it as it is interesting for you (and consider it encyclopedic content).
Taking recipes outside wikipedia without having proper interwikilinks makes no sense. If I remember well, links to wiktionary were deleted from wikipedia as "not relevant" ... but links from wiktionary to wikipedia were welcome (strange behavior ... against the spirit of all collaborative projects).
So: or you create a proper structure with proper links for people who are interested in recipes if you don't like the actual structure and propose it or you let those work who are obviously interested in it.
Just deleting and saying: do wherever you'd like to do it, or saying just "go there" without proposing on how to connect, but don't work here is not an answer.
If you say a description of a dish is OK, but not the recipe then from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Night Lyrics should be taken to wikisource
There's no difference between the description of a song and the lyrics and the description of a dish and the recipe. Now you say: but lyrics are unique - this is not true - Silent Night in Italian has three different versions of lyrics ... so three recipes for the same dish (music)
When I first saw the recipes on wikipedia some weeks ago searching for Christmas stuff I liked it and passed the link to some cooking-groups that were simply delighted. If someting is interesting for an enyclopedia always depends on the people you ask so ask the right people and you will have as many positive or negative answers as you need.
If you want to pass recipes to a section in wikibooks you need to present a proposal on how to show this "clearly" as an interwiki-link and not just below the article with "for further information please see" ... (that probably is then going to be deleted as someone starts to think it is not relevant and the same discussion starts over again).
Instead of writing thousands of negative words please start to think positive and create something out of this discussion. We are not here to work one against the other but to work together.
Sorry, but I was thinking about so many words written here that could have been used for articles, improvements etc. - or to create the proposal of a structure.
Ciao, Sabine
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:56:05 +0100, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it wrote:
So some of you say: a recipe is not part of culture and has nothing to do with encyclopedias .... hmmmm ...
I don't see anyone saying that.
If you say a description of a dish is OK, but not the recipe then from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Night Lyrics should be taken to wikisource
There's no difference between the description of a song and the lyrics and the description of a dish and the recipe. Now you say: but lyrics are unique - this is not true - Silent Night in Italian has three different versions of lyrics ... so three recipes for the same dish (music)
That's three. That's not a different one for everyone making it, often several per person.
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:56:05 +0100, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it wrote:
So some of you say: a recipe is not part of culture and has nothing to do with encyclopedias .... hmmmm ...
I don't see anyone saying that.
If you say a description of a dish is OK, but not the recipe then from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Night Lyrics should be taken to wikisource
There's no difference between the description of a song and the lyrics and the description of a dish and the recipe. Now you say: but lyrics are unique - this is not true - Silent Night in Italian has three different versions of lyrics ... so three recipes for the same dish (music)
That's three. That's not a different one for everyone making it, often several per person.
Andre Engels
Andre, Expect a typical recipy, perhaps add a few significant varieties and that is what you will find. I cannot foresee that everyone will want to write how they want their eggs in the morning. As far as I am concerned, I like mine with a kiss (to quote the song). :) Thanks, GerardM
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.
Mark
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:16:46 +0100, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:56:05 +0100, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it wrote:
So some of you say: a recipe is not part of culture and has nothing to do with encyclopedias .... hmmmm ...
I don't see anyone saying that.
If you say a description of a dish is OK, but not the recipe then from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Night Lyrics should be taken to wikisource
There's no difference between the description of a song and the lyrics and the description of a dish and the recipe. Now you say: but lyrics are unique - this is not true - Silent Night in Italian has three different versions of lyrics ... so three recipes for the same dish (music)
That's three. That's not a different one for everyone making it, often several per person.
Andre Engels
Andre, Expect a typical recipy, perhaps add a few significant varieties and that is what you will find. I cannot foresee that everyone will want to write how they want their eggs in the morning. As far as I am concerned, I like mine with a kiss (to quote the song). :) Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
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)
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)
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
Phil Sandifer wrote:
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
I fully agree. Use recipe to illustrate article like we do with pictures and consider article consisting solely of a recipe as a stub that must be enhance like all other stubs.
Aoineko
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:45:30 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com 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.
Wholly agreed. I think there is broad consensus on this, and this is definitely something we can go forward with. Just as a picture on its own is not an article, a recipe on its own is not an article. Both, IMO, can illustrate an article, but the article should be the meat, so to speak.
-Matt (User:Morven)
Matt Brown 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.
Exactly. Very few good cooks will follow a recipe to the letter; they know that they need to make adjustments. Many of the possible variants are not critical to the recipe. Good cooks will know from experience what needs to be adjusted to allow for one's altitude above sea level.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org