Talk:Food science: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce (there *isn't* a Cuisine area) |
imported>Kjetil Ree m (checklisted) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{checklist | |||
| abc = Food Science | |||
| cat1 = Food Science | |||
| cat2 = | |||
| cat3 = | |||
| cat_check = n | |||
| status = 3 | |||
| underlinked = y | |||
| cleanup = y | |||
| by = [[User:Kjetil Ree|Kjetil Ree]] 11:35, 30 July 2007 (CDT) | |||
}} | |||
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. | ||
Revision as of 10:35, 30 July 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Food Science Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | Stub: no more than a few sentences |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Kjetil Ree 11:35, 30 July 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
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)
Categories:
- Food Science Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Food Science Advanced Articles
- Food Science Nonstub Articles
- Food Science Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Food Science Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Food Science Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Food Science Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Food Science External Articles
- Food Science Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Food Science Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup