Talk:Food science: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce (Disagree: for the moment, there's almost no content here -- we need to make evident the little we have to the casual browser) |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "cuisine" to "cuisine") |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
This is the main article on Food Science, so it should not become just a holding place for lists of foods. Cuisine is just one aspect, and it would be very easy for the main body of the article to remain untouched, while the list of foods goes on and on. | This is the main article on Food Science, so it should not become just a holding place for lists of foods. Cuisine is just one aspect, and it would be very easy for the main body of the article to remain untouched, while the list of foods goes on and on. | ||
I suggest placing the lists of types of cuisine under | I suggest placing the lists of types of cuisine under cuisine, or [[culinary art]]s or some such, assuming there's stuff to be said about either/both of those different to what would be said about [[cooking]]. [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 17:31, 21 July 2007 (CDT) | ||
:That would be one thing if there actually *were* a cuisine or culinary art area, but there isn't. As it stands, at least to me, the greatest present weakness of CZ for the casual browser coming in here to look for info is the *lack* of such. There are only 2,300 articles! By listing categories, and sub-categories under them, we at least give the impression that *something* is being done. Sure, later, if there are 50,000 articles, or a million articles, move some of the lists into other places. In the meantime, let's make this place look as big and important as possible. Like the advice they give in California if you're a hiker confronted by a bear or mountain lion: stick your arms out, stand up straight, puff up your chest, and make yourself look as big and tough as possible.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 01:31, 22 July 2007 (CDT) | :That would be one thing if there actually *were* a cuisine or culinary art area, but there isn't. As it stands, at least to me, the greatest present weakness of CZ for the casual browser coming in here to look for info is the *lack* of such. There are only 2,300 articles! By listing categories, and sub-categories under them, we at least give the impression that *something* is being done. Sure, later, if there are 50,000 articles, or a million articles, move some of the lists into other places. In the meantime, let's make this place look as big and important as possible. Like the advice they give in California if you're a hiker confronted by a bear or mountain lion: stick your arms out, stand up straight, puff up your chest, and make yourself look as big and tough as possible.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 01:31, 22 July 2007 (CDT) | ||
::Wait a sec--we're talking about what's in the ''article'', not an area/workgroup/whatever. I do agree with your comments in general, but since there *is* so little, why not move what you've placed at Food Science to cuisine? Or at least copy it over, with a view to cutting it from Food Sci eventually? [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 19:33, 22 July 2007 (CDT) | |||
:::Because there *isn't* a cuisine, and the people who commented about my proposal for a "Culinary Arts" workshop or whatnot seemed to be against it. So all of this stuff is stuck in Food Sciences, where I'm trying to sort it out. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 11:45, 23 July 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:42, 21 September 2024
This is the main article on Food Science, so it should not become just a holding place for lists of foods. Cuisine is just one aspect, and it would be very easy for the main body of the article to remain untouched, while the list of foods goes on and on.
I suggest placing the lists of types of cuisine under cuisine, or culinary arts or some such, assuming there's stuff to be said about either/both of those different to what would be said about cooking. Aleta Curry 17:31, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
- That would be one thing if there actually *were* a cuisine or culinary art area, but there isn't. As it stands, at least to me, the greatest present weakness of CZ for the casual browser coming in here to look for info is the *lack* of such. There are only 2,300 articles! By listing categories, and sub-categories under them, we at least give the impression that *something* is being done. Sure, later, if there are 50,000 articles, or a million articles, move some of the lists into other places. In the meantime, let's make this place look as big and important as possible. Like the advice they give in California if you're a hiker confronted by a bear or mountain lion: stick your arms out, stand up straight, puff up your chest, and make yourself look as big and tough as possible.... Hayford Peirce 01:31, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
- Wait a sec--we're talking about what's in the article, not an area/workgroup/whatever. I do agree with your comments in general, but since there *is* so little, why not move what you've placed at Food Science to cuisine? Or at least copy it over, with a view to cutting it from Food Sci eventually? Aleta Curry 19:33, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
- Because there *isn't* a cuisine, and the people who commented about my proposal for a "Culinary Arts" workshop or whatnot seemed to be against it. So all of this stuff is stuck in Food Sciences, where I'm trying to sort it out. Hayford Peirce 11:45, 23 July 2007 (CDT)