Talk:History of food
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Ooo-wee. Huge topic, it'd seem. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 11:41, 17 September 2007 (CDT)
name of article
I gotta say that I don't like the title at all. How about Food, the history of or Food (the history of) or Food (history of)? As it stands, it sounds to me as if it's the start of a list: Food, history, Henry Ford, calories, blackbirds, pie, etc.... Hayford Peirce 12:23, 17 September 2007 (CDT)
- Well I suppose Food, historical roles or Food, world history are OK--note that historians and publishers strongly dislike titles such as "The History of XYZ" and have deliberately avoided them in last decade or two. . We should avoid parentheses in titles. (I put one in the Malthus article and it looks a bit odd). Richard Jensen 15:56, 17 September 2007 (CDT)
- Just to comment on the latter comment. It is incorrect that we should avoid parentheses in titles, as a general rule. We use them as disambiguators; e.g., "Paris (Greek hero)". But I don't advocate their use in this case. I would prefer food history or pace RJ, history of food (never the history of food). Of interest [1] --Larry Sanger 16:01, 17 September 2007 (CDT)
- Well I suppose Food, historical roles or Food, world history are OK--note that historians and publishers strongly dislike titles such as "The History of XYZ" and have deliberately avoided them in last decade or two. . We should avoid parentheses in titles. (I put one in the Malthus article and it looks a bit odd). Richard Jensen 15:56, 17 September 2007 (CDT)