CZ:Proposals/Recipes Subpage and Accompanying Usage Policy

This proposal has been assigned on an ad hoc basis to the person or persons named just below, and is now in the Ad hoc proposals queue

This proposal will be approvable, with one caveat, by the contributors to this page, when the driver deems it ready to call for approval. If there is a controversy, and you contribute to this page, then you have a "vote." The caveat is that the final proposal must be posted to cz-editcouncil by an editor (feel free to send it to me when you're ready --LMS), so that the Council has a chance to review it and opt to vote on it (not likely). --Larry Sanger (Proposals Manager pro tempore)

Driver: Supten Sarbadhikari

Complete explanation

A new subpages option will be added to the subages template and an accompanying content policy will govern its usages, described on CZ:Recipes.

Reasoning

Culinary articles need a few illustrative recipes.

Implementation

• Code will be added to the subpages template, and no one need worry about who will do that step.
• A recipe subpages policy will be written by an ad hoc group (whoever wants to do it). That content policy, CZ:Recipes, should be added to this page as soon as possible, as it will complete this proposal.

Discussion

Various people discussed this in various talk spaces, including most recently, the talk pages of Bolognese sauce and CZ Talk: Food Science Workgroup# Recipes/Receipts but nothing concrete appears to have come of those discussions.

---

I'd be glad to participate if I had the foggiest notion of what was going on. Ah well, I'll start anyway.

Some issues

1. Options: well, we could have a recipe tab as a subpage, or we could start separate CZ how-to workbooks. I see no reason for the latter, since we have clusters, and think a recipe tab system would work well.
2. It would make sense for there to be a catalogue of recipes somewhere. One could browse the catalogue for a list of things to make for dinner, or go right to the cluster if you knew e.g. you were looking for a recipe for ragu. Not that I think CZ would be the first stop for recipes.
3. Somewhere, someone (I think Hayford wrote that recipes should not be editable by just anyone. I think this is a valid point. Drive-by editing can just ruin a good recipe, and significantly alter an authentic one. I think this should be given consideration.

Aleta Curry 15:18, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Proposer remarks

Geez, now do I have rewrite this whole thing again?! This is baffling!

Anyway, my question is very simple: what are we going to do about the recipes that I am inserting into various articles? Make them subpages? Classify them in some index somewhere? Start a new tab for "Recipes" at the top of pages on which that would be a useful feature. Index them somehow at some central repository? Catalog them? List them?

The point is that they should be easily accessible, and easily findable. We're not quite yet at the point where we can offer competition to the Larousse Gastronomique, but on the other hand, the recipes I've put in are a *lot* more practical and easy to follow than anything you're ever going to find in the Larousse except, maybe, a boiled egg....Hayford Peirce 19:20, 12 February 2008 (CST)

Sorry you found the system baffling. Obviously, you don't have to rewrite the summary on the proposal page. The proposal page is supposed to detail the issue as you wish to raise it. For further instructions, see CZ:Proposals/Policy, where it's explained.

You've asked a question, but you didn't formulate it as an issue, i.e., as a decision among two or more options; but you didn't detail any options. Are you expecting someone else to lay out some specific options? But why not you? The system is designed as a venue where you can say, "Here are the options and I think we must pick one," or "Here is how to do something that must be done." If you don't want to spell out the issue in detail, well, maybe someone else will for you... --Larry Sanger 20:56, 12 February 2008 (CST)

Experimenting

I'd like to test the system by acting as a driver. Supten Sarbadhikari 21:51, 12 February 2008 (CST)

Please do, because I'm completely at sea here! Hayford Peirce 10:13, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Thanks, Supten! The first think to do is to read through CZ:Proposals/Policy and, if you have any questions, particularly if anything is poorly explained (or unexplained), won't you please let me know? I am not quite finished with it, but I'm close. One thing I haven't done is explained what the Proposals Manager does, and when. I'll be adding a section about that soon. --Larry Sanger 22:44, 12 February 2008 (CST)

Pointers

Supten asked for some pointers on where to go next in driving this proposal forward. It's tolerably clear from CZ:Proposals/Policy (especially this section and those following) that a proposal needs to be developed to a certain point before it is acceptable. It should be developed well enough, in any case, to be actionable. What's that mean, in this case? Well, despite the fact that we have many subpage types that are not well described (but then, most undescribed types have not been well used), I think we should at least require of new subpage types (if in fact we are going to have a new subpage type for recipes) that we have a complete draft of a policy page.

Right now, the proposal page merely raises a question (how and under what rules should we host recipes on CZ?) without giving any well-developed answers. Perhaps I shouldn't have taken this off of the new proposals page until the proposal were better developed, but my assumption was that one of the next steps (along with discussion) would be that at least one option would be well developed.

At any rate, if no one is interested in developing CZ:Recipes, or in other respects spelling out the proposal clearly, we should probably file this one under CZ:Proposals/Driverless. Still, if someone (like Hayford) is willing to take a stab at articulating policy for this sort of page, then he or she should be made a co-driver. Then, Supten, as driver, you would simply ask Hayford (or Aleta, or whomever) to write CZ:Recipes. Or, Supten, if you're willing to flesh out the page yourself, do so. Note that there are certain set sections of policy pages about subpage types. See CZ:Subpages#How to add subpage types.

If you're looking for my opinion, which on something like this I offer as merely an opinion, I would say that it makes good sense to make a new subpage type for recipes, but I lack the time and expertise to tackle this myself. --Larry Sanger 07:01, 19 February 2008 (CST)

I've gone over this page again, and from what Larry *seems* to be saying, someone should first of all create a new article called Recipe (or Recipes possibly). I can easily do that. It won't say much, but it *will* exist. Then Larry seems to be saying that someone should *probably* create a subpage tab called "Recipes", to be put in at the top of pertinent pages along with the other tabs such as Edit, Discussion, External Links, Etc. I, for one, definitely agree with that suggestion. I would do it myself, instantly, *except I don't know how*! If I don't have to be a programmer to do it, and someone will *tell* me how, I will, after the proposal has been approved, do it. On the other hand, if it takes 2 hours to explain to me how to do it, and 3 minutes for the explainer to do it himself/herself, then I suggest the latter course.... Hayford Peirce 09:24, 19 February 2008 (CST)

I should make more definite recommendations, eh, Hayford?  ;-) OK. You do not need to worry about making a subpage tab for recipes. Someone else will do that. Writing recipe is also not necessary. All I'm saying is that CZ:Recipes should be made (and filled in with sensible policy recommendations) by someone. If you, then you could be added as a proposal co-drivers. --Larry Sanger 10:24, 19 February 2008 (CST)

You lost me. Is CZ:Recipes a category? I thought we weren't supposed to go around creating categories. Is it just a page that needs beginning? Heck, Hayford and I can do that. Aleta Curry 14:50, 19 February 2008 (CST)

No, categories are preceded by Category: . This is a page to be linked from CZ:Subpages (once a specific proposal is made and accepted). --Larry Sanger 14:52, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Hi Aleta--well done! See CZ:Subpages#How to add subpage types please! --Larry Sanger 14:58, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Yowzers. Can we wipe this and start over with a clean slate and clear proposal? I've listened to folks on this proposal idea and can make one. Stephen Ewen 15:12, 19 February 2008 (CST)

See CZ:Proposals/Recipes Subpage and Accompanying Usage Policy‎ for the fresh start. Stephen Ewen 15:46, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Steve, in the interests of not stepping on toes, let's get a reply from the current driver(s). Aleta has agreed to join in with Supten, it looks like, to me. I would interpret your proposal as a suggestion that you take over as driver and that this proposal be redirected. I would say that that is up to the current drivers. --Larry Sanger 15:51, 19 February 2008 (CST)

It is a suggestion, as I was just coming here to say, and I really don't wanna be driver. But this page is just a mess, so if the clean slate page over there is useful, move on over to it, if not, no problemo at'all. Just trying to see a need and serve! Stephen Ewen 15:56, 19 February 2008 (CST)

OK, no problem. I redirected the old proposal here (because I did not spot much of an issue, but only a proposal, and so no need for a question), and merged the text, basically because your edits were mostly clarificatory and sensible. One point of order: you stated how the proposal should be adopted in the implementation section, Steve; well, that's up to the Proposals Manager (i.e., moi) and was already stated at the top of the proposal. Also, the proposal already has a driver, namely Supten, although I have been doing his job by using your edits, Steve.

Supten, what I would suggest you do is give up the driver's seat to Steve or Aleta, since they're jumping on it, and you're not!  :-) Less work for you, right? --Larry Sanger 16:35, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Aw, look, I'd rather not drive. I'm supposed to be following up on other stuff, like approvals, and we still don't have a driver for Internationalisation. Besides, I still don't know what's going on, really. Aleta Curry 16:58, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Me drive? I don't know, this road's got an awful lot of stuff laying about... :-) Stephen Ewen 17:18, 19 February 2008 (CST)

The Driving issue

As per the Policy, the Proposals Manager (Larry) can co-opt n number of Co-drivers or even replace the original driver. My personal opinion is that I'd like to have Hayford as a Co-driver (in any case he IS the original proposer). Both Aleta and Steve are too busy to act as drivers. Certainly both of them can act as Navigators. I'd come back to this page in about another six hours or so and make further comments. Supten Sarbadhikari 20:59, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Hmm, but I am doubting that Hayford is up to reading the rules that drivers are supposed to read. He'd be welcome to join you if he's willing, though. Let's just keep you on, and let you take credit for other people's work!  ;-) --Larry Sanger 21:18, 19 February 2008 (CST)

A keen insight into another person's character from a distance, Larry! Hayford is the original scofflaw -- and, I gotta say, reading an awful of what goes on in the various Proposal forums to me is like looking at one of my books published in Russian -- it's just incomprehensible to me even though I know it makes sense to other people. Sorry, but that's the way my brain works, or, rather, doesn't work.... I'll certainly be happy to work *with* other people, as far as I can, within this and other projects, but I know I'm not equipped to act as a driver or co-driver in any of this....Hayford Peirce 21:48, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Well, I just inferred from the fact that you thought the original CZ:Proposals page was practically intolerable that you'd never be up to reading CZ:Proposals/Policy.  ;-) No very keen insight there. --Larry Sanger 22:16, 19 February 2008 (CST)

[Smilingly taps fingernails in a row across the table]. Looks like the driver's manual is also gonna need some condensin'. :-) Stephen Ewen 22:18, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Steve, why don't you propose (and drive) another proposal on Driving proposals? Supten Sarbadhikari 22:55, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Sure, but let's first write a proposal for that proposal about propsals, eh? [Kidding!!] Stephen Ewen 14:54, 20 February 2008 (CST)

Template:Nutrition

I carved up this little doodaddy Sunday night, but it needs more technical logic stuff that I didn't put in. There's a reference document on the template page that I linked to which makes it look pretty close to the real label. There's stuffs missing also, and it needs tweaking, but it's a start, if you're interested in using it. Basically you just copy the numbers down from the label and put 'em in the template. --Robert W King 19:24, 24 February 2008 (CST)

Looks pretty useful! Supten Sarbadhikari 21:31, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Could it maybe have colours or something so it looks less stark? Anyway, for something like eggnog, I'll forgo all the details and just put "lethal". Aleta Curry 00:26, 26 February 2008 (CST)

While the template itself is very well-done, I greatly dislike this direction - again toward Good Housekeeping magazine rather than a scholarly culinary publication. I believe CZ needs to be taking this kind of direction. Besides, data contained in this U.S. government mandated template on foodstuffs in the U.S. must be approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Unless CZ is prepared to do the scientific studies and submit entires to the USDA, it is a non-starter for us to use it. The only usage of it may be where the data has already been published, and in this, WP does give some reasonable usages. Stephen Ewen 01:18, 26 February 2008 (CST)

How is including nutrional information not scholarly? It's scientific, at least, and it's practically labelled (probably considered, "published") on everything that's edible and packaged in the US! It's not like it's original research. --Robert W King 11:08, 26 February 2008 (CST)

No recipes I am aware of go through the process for this labeling. Prepackaged (example) or mass-made (example) products made under controlled conditions do, which seems how the template could be useful. Stephen Ewen 16:38, 26 February 2008 (CST)

I can't think of the sources offhand, but I *have* seen recipes in some newpaper food sections and some food magazines in which a *lot* of nutrition info is given; certainly how many calories per serving, then probably fat content per serving, etc. etc. Not as detailed as the template, or what you see on the side of a commercial loaf of bread, but a fair amount. Since I myself ignore all that baloney, I pay no attention to it in recipes. Unless we're reproducing *very* modern recipes from sources such as that, I don't see how it would be practical to put in this info in our own recipes. Hayford Peirce 19:05, 26 February 2008 (CST)

Well, for my part, I don't have an objection to the template as such, on Good Housekeeping grounds or otherwise. I wonder, though, if it's likely to be used right away. I am unlikely to try to work out the fat/fibre/kcal in anything I cook well enough to write a recipe for.

I wonder, Robert, if you could start us instead with the infobox concept? Ingredients, equipment, prep time, cooking time, how many does it feed? We could maybe have a simplified section on nutrition in the infobox: this contains spinach which has vitamins A and C and cheese which has vitamin D and tastes really good. Some such. Hayford and I would probably use something like that, and it would be (fairly?) easy for others to add to/correct it.

Aleta Curry 20:38, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Next steps?

Supten asked me what the next steps for this proposal should be. As I see it, for this sort of proposal, there are at least two natural steps before it can be considered "ready to go." First, the proposal itself needs to be fully developed. Is it, in your opinion, Supten? Second, once it is fully developed (in Supten's opinion), it needs to given some general evaluation by "the stakeholders," i.e., people who are following this page and who might be inclined to make recipes subpages. In particular, they need to say whether they think it's ready to go. If not, then we should take care of whatever their concerns are. I'd like to have a chance to evaluate the proposal myself, once it is complete in your opinion, Supten, so please let me know.

Supten, I'll leave it to you to update the "next step" and date...thanks. --Larry Sanger 13:07, 27 February 2008 (CST)

Hayford, Aleta and Steve, please comment thoughtfully. Supten Sarbadhikari 23:31, 27 February 2008 (CST)

That this subpage should exist is obvious, as I've said all along. It was really just an oversight that it did not get "canonized" when subpages were created. I see no reason why the basic idea of it can't just get the okay and the details collaboratively worked out over time as interested people have time and interest. If problems arise, then they can be brought up appropriately. Surely we don't want to stifle creativity and progress just because all the details of something are not worked out and set in cast ahead of time. Things usually don't work well that way, anyway. Stephen Ewen 02:39, 28 February 2008 (CST)

I'm so confused by this whole business that I don't even know what I'm supposed to doing. If Steve thinks that it's fine, then it is. This whole Proposals within Proposals business is *way* over my head -- sorry for being stupid.... Hayford Peirce 11:49, 28 February 2008 (CST)

Okay, like Hayford, I'm getting confused. I don't exactly remember where we are--this doesn't even look like the same proposals page.

We need a certain amount of learning by doing/learning by erring. I think Steve has a point: let's start and let policy evolve as we go. We can always ask one another questions/make suggestions as we go.

Some things do need to be decided, though, like, how so we restrict editing of recipes to avoid drive-by ruining?

Can we start even if we haven't agreed on all the styling/formatting? I say yes.

Where is the LIST OF ALL CZ RECIPES going to live? We'll need one. Especially if we justdoit, we will need to know where all the recipes are so we can organise them according to however we're going to organise them once/if we ever get organised.

Aleta Curry 20:53, 29 February 2008 (CST)

I'm simpleminded, so I tend to think of doing things in a simple way. How about this: We (I, you, anyone) create an article called, get this!: Recipes (I checked -- it doesn't yet exist). The lede paragraph will read: "For both your eating and intellectual pleasure, CZ is gonna feature a number of recipes. It may or may not become *very* comprehensive. In the meantime, here is an alphabetical list of recipes currently available." Then, underneath that, using the * thingee to indent, we JUST START LISTING THE THINGS! And, as I proposed earlier, we give lots of references and (see so-and-so) and redirects so that even the meanest intellect will eventually be able to find whatever he/she is looking for, even if we have to list 7 different names for the same dish. How's that? Hayford Peirce 21:02, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Where is another discussion of this recipe business?

I distinctly remember several days ago *another* discussion in which I made some suggestions how we could *list* categories and/or recipes, and I used the * thingee to give some examples. Where the devil is *that* article/discussion/proposal/proposal-within-a-Proposal or whatever it was? Hayford Peirce 21:10, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only)

Help/policy New proposals List of all proposals Driverless proposals: proposals that lack a champion Discarded proposals: poorly formed proposals Templates: {{Proposal}} | {{Proposal assignment}} | {{Proposals navigation}}

Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank): Editorial Council: Active | Finished | Declined Approval and Feedback: Active | Finished | Declined Eduzendium: Active | Finished | Declined Recruitment: Active | Finished | Declined Constabulary: Active | Finished | Declined Executive: Active | Finished | Declined Technical: Active | Finished | Declined PR: Active | Finished | Declined Ad hoc management: Active | Finished | Declined