Talk:English cuisine
English cuisine has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 29, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
English wine[edit]
A section on the growing English wine sector should be added. Englandsupport4 (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Gallery[edit]
I see the Gallery has been the subject of previous discussion. Two quick points from me:
- Beef Wellington - I tend to agree with CC's earlier comment. I'm just not sure it's popular/commonly served, at least these days. I've actually seen it far more often on menus abroad than I have in the UK.
- Full English breakfast - Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the triangular item bottom centre a hash brown, rather than the piece of fried bread that it should be?
Anyways - food for thought. KJP1 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
POV removal of large amount of reliably-cited content[edit]
An editor has seen fit to remove an exceptionally large amount of reliably-cited content, apparently on the grounds that it seemed to them "negative".
Firstly, Wikipedia covers topics neutrally, per WP:NPOV, covering all attitudes whether those are in favour or against any particular position. This article takes no side, has been formally reviewed on criteria which explicitly include neutrality, and is Reliably Cited to scholarly and other sources.
Secondly, it is unacceptable for editors to remove content that they personally consider "negative". Editors always have a wide range of opinions, and they are required when working on Wikipedia to put their own views aside and to report on the facts neutrally.
I have therefore restored the article to its last clean state. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, the article should staty in this state until the discussion is completed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I added back my two changes - the Yorkshire Pudding quote from a chef needs a balance. Smallworldsplayer 2 (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)- That's fine; the exact claim and citation were actually commented out in the same paragraph, i.e. it had been considered for inclusion. No worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps we could update some of the images in the English dishes gallery, using pictures @CulinaryBrit's added in his edit here? Smallworldsplayer 2 (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)- Thanks for discussing. It's not impossible, but you will note that each of the current images is discussed by scholars and provided with known dates, suitably cited to reliable sources. Further, the images have been chosen to illustrate the diversity of both dishes and ingredients, and the range of dates at which these were introduced. The gallery is thus both well-informed and large enough (galleries must not be indiscriminate), so it is not obvious why we'd need either to replace any of the existing images, or to add more. In either case, we would require reliable sources. Further, to replace an image, we'd need a convincing set of arguments, here, why the new image served readers better than the old one; and to add an image, we'd need arguments both of the necessity for the additional image, as stated by scholars in the article's text, and for why the gallery would not be getting over-large (i.e. worse, and contrary to policy) through the addition. The default position is that the current gallery is properly constructed and sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Maybe it's something we could work on slowly? I do think @CulinaryBrit introduced some nicer, more up to date images in the gallery. I do understand, however, we must keep the sources there and do this carefully. It wouldn't even hurt for some dishes to be replaced and new sources added with it. Smallworldsplayer 2 (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)- Change is always possible. The idea is that the images directly support the cited text in the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for discussing. It's not impossible, but you will note that each of the current images is discussed by scholars and provided with known dates, suitably cited to reliable sources. Further, the images have been chosen to illustrate the diversity of both dishes and ingredients, and the range of dates at which these were introduced. The gallery is thus both well-informed and large enough (galleries must not be indiscriminate), so it is not obvious why we'd need either to replace any of the existing images, or to add more. In either case, we would require reliable sources. Further, to replace an image, we'd need a convincing set of arguments, here, why the new image served readers better than the old one; and to add an image, we'd need arguments both of the necessity for the additional image, as stated by scholars in the article's text, and for why the gallery would not be getting over-large (i.e. worse, and contrary to policy) through the addition. The default position is that the current gallery is properly constructed and sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's fine; the exact claim and citation were actually commented out in the same paragraph, i.e. it had been considered for inclusion. No worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
English wine missing?[edit]
Welsh wine is mentioned on Welsh cuisine, but no mention of English wine here? It's the biggest market of wine in the UK and England produces more wine than the rest of the UK. Should be noted and given some attention. 2A02:C7C:74AD:AF00:1D74:3475:623A:4662 (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Not sure that it's particularly well justified (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is against Wikipedia policy - there are always instances of people doing things which may be inappropriate), and wine is not "cuisine" but agricultural production, and so forth. I know that the French sometimes put a glass of wine in their stew, but there is certainly no tradition of such things in England. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Almost every cuisine page represents a section on beverages. 2A02:C7C:74AD:AF00:5C35:104D:9E4E:D332 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Then a lot of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ... if we're serious about focusing on "cuisine", then we need to ask "do these things form part of the cuisine", and only if the answer is "reliable sources say yes" should we add and cite anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Almost every cuisine page represents a section on beverages. 2A02:C7C:74AD:AF00:5C35:104D:9E4E:D332 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Agriculture, food and drink good articles
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Everyday life
- GA-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Everyday life
- GA-Class vital articles in Everyday life
- GA-Class Food and drink articles
- High-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- GA-Class England-related articles
- High-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages