Talk:Food and drink

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Stupid Question[edit]

Why is there an article on Bavarian cuisine (which is fine, but not all that special) but none on - say - Fast food in North America or Mexican food which are probably the two best known and most eaten cuisines globally, unless "Asian" takeout is in any way authentic or uniform across the globe (which I highly doubt). And yes both are a reason for travel all by themselves. There have been movies about people looking for one specific (generic brand name) restaurant, for crying out loud. And whenever I get half a chance to get something close to decent Mexican food (just not found in either East Germany or small town Nicaragua) I get a year's worth of it ;-) Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Answer: because no one has plunged forward in that direction yet. Please give it a shot! I'd think more complete guides on Thai, Japanese, Chinese and Indian cuisine would be immensely helpful for travelers in those respective countries too. Texugo (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created an article on fast food, but I am not happy with it as of now and my knowledge of the subject is far from encyclopedic... maybe someone from the states would care to help? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative banner for this article?[edit]

Banner currently used in this article
Suggested new alternative banner

I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The alternative banner is clearly better than the currently-used one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go for it. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. #2. – Hshook (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, #2 is an improvement. Danapit (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, this really is an improvement. I prefer the new one too. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
#2 Syced (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. /Yvwv (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
#2 is better. Kaldari (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revisit banner[edit]

Maybe it is my high definition screen, but the new (as of 2015) banner is really blurry. Can we change? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We could switch out this banner with the Japanese cuisine banner. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Cuisine" articles[edit]

Swept in from the pub

We have a whole slew of articles on different types of ethnic cuisine: French cuisine, Italian cuisine, Mexican food, Japanese cuisine, etc. None of them are better than Usable status (and most of them are Outlines), so perhaps I should wait a bit before raising this concern, but most of them seem to be developing in an awfully encyclopedic direction. I'm not sure if these articles are the work of one individual gourmand editor or several, but I'd like to see them reworked a little bit to function more as bona fide travel topics rather than information that's essentially redundant to their respective analogues on Wikipedia. In other words, on Wikivoyage it's not sufficient to simply describe these foods - the approach should be, if I'm a traveler who's (let's say) going to Italy, and one of my goals is to experience the best Italian cuisine, what cities or regions should I visit, what kind of places should I seek out, what kind of pitfalls should I avoid, etc.? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I share your concerns and think it's always good to raise some awareness about them. It's a common issue with our travel topics. Often enough, the "travel guide" aspect is injected as a somewhat uncomfortable and basic list of obvious destinations. Some of the articles about religions, however interesting, have a focus on the encyclopedic side, as do some of the sports-articles (e.g. Horse riding), in my opinion. One of the challenges is to make sure the travel information is not confined to general or obvious remarks. In the example of horse riding, Each nation has its own culture of horsemanship, with local customs and taboos that need to be respected (without any more specific information) is hardly helpful. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with both of you. In case anyone asks, I don't think this is a reason - at least in most cases - to delete the articles, but it would help a lot if there were more edits with a clear travel focus and practical information a traveler can use. And one issue with an article like Italian cuisine is that when you are in Italy, there very arguably is no such thing as "Italian cuisine", only Tuscan cuisine, Campanian cuisine, Roman cuisine, Milanese cuisine, etc. In a real sense, it's only when you are outside of Italy that "Italian cuisine" exists. Ditto and maybe even more so for "Chinese cuisine" and "Indian cuisine", although South Indian cuisine is a much more coherent concept. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, focus is the key word here. To be very honest, when I look at the Wikipedia article on French cuisine, full of regional differences and information on the different kinds of venues, I'm not even sure how to shape an article here that will have any real added value and not seem like a pale shadow of its WP counterpart. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a lot of sections that wouldn't be relevant here. But I think we could possibly improve on the regional sections. The region I know best is probably Provence, as I spent parts of 2 summers as a graduate student in Nice, and I find the "Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur" section fairly cursory, although I see it has a link to a region-specific article.
I don't know, my skepticism really has to do with two things: (1) Do we have enough editors with specific knowledge about regional specialties to really add value to these "cuisine of" articles? (2) Is it really useful to talk about "Italian cuisine" or "French cuisine" as if it's one thing? I tend to think broader topic articles like the one on Alcoholic beverages may have more potential, even if they're hardly perfect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created many of these articles, though other users have provided most of the information. One reason is that many country articles are bloated, not least the Eat sections, which are in many cases dominated by lists of dishes without context or grammatical flow. Sections such as France#Eat can be shortened down to more essential information for eating in France, while the bulk of the text can be exported to French cuisine. For countries of similar culinary tradition such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman etc, a link to Middle Eastern cuisine would be more appropriate than repetition of similar lists. /Yvwv (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not intended as an argument for either side, but the advertising hellhole has in their infinite wisdom to bloat their main page decided to "feature" a cuisine every month. All they actually do is link to often neither well written nor up to date "eat" sections... Edited to add: They seem to have gotten rid of it, but they still have a "language of the month" and similar features that are mostly explained by their extremely low standards. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should study the mistakes of The Other Site, to avoid making them ourselves. We learn that links to short or deficient articles should not be promoted on the main page. And certainly not short or deficient sub-sections. Most cuisine articles, most of them are very young, compared to artifacts such as Bavarian cuisine, and need time to grow. /Yvwv (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By "artifacts", do you simply mean "older articles"? Because that's not normally how I'd interpret the word. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Bavarian cuisine article was created on The Other Site in 2004, and has since then remained a simple bullet list. Since 2015, the corresponding Wikivoyage article has improved greatly, especially thanks to User:Hobbitschuster and User:Andrewssi2. We should be patient with Wikivoyage articles which are short today. The Wikivoyage community will be able to improve such articles to a level unattainable by The Other Site. /Yvwv (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not the length of the articles that is the issue; like all WV articles, it is fine that they take time to develop. The challenge is to make them more travel oriented, and provide an angle that is different from the encyclopedic articles over at Wikipedia. While I agree the Bavarian cuisine article has been nicely fleshed out, by exception perhaps even more so than the WP one, I don't see how it is any different in focus. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many Eat sections are not travel-oriented, either. In general, both the Eat sections and the cuisine articles should focus on information such as typical meal times, availability of restaurants, table manners, and information about how to find vegetarian food, or other food to fulfill specific needs. Cuisine articles could also benefit from more historical context of the cuisine. /Yvwv (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could flesh out Wikivoyage:Article templates/Sections#Eat for guidelines how to write an Eat section for country articles. /Yvwv (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think "Eat" sections might also focus on regional dishes that are not widely known or available outside their home region. See Buffalo#Local specialties for an example of what I mean by this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just looked these over for the first time, and I'm not very happy with them. It's handy to know what the foods are (descriptions and translations will be very handy when looking at a menu in a restaurant), but I think what I'd want is something more like "You've got to try this" or "Here's what to get for street food, here's how to get a snack, here's what to get in a fancy restaurant", or "This is for adventurous people, this is for timid diners". For example, it's been years since I've been in France, and I can't claim to be very familiar with it, but it seems like the article ought to mention things like this:
  • Lunchtime is important and long (by US standards) – but don't be late, because it's hard to find a place that will seat you after 1:30 p.m. Dinner is typically late, maybe starting at 8:00 p.m. in cities. A three-course meal is an everyday affair.
  • If you're hungry and you need something quick to eat, then buy a crepe. There are crepe stands all over the place.
  • Restaurants can be pricey. If your budget is tight, then get bread, cheese, fruit, and vegetables from the outdoor market, and make a picnic. Also, wine is cheap (at the store, not at the restaurant). Water (plain and fizzy) is free at restaurants.
  • If someone invites you to their home for a meal, it will probably last for hours.
  • Frog legs, snails in garlic butter, and lobster are all very traditional, but not very popular. Picky eaters might be happier with the excellent bread and butter that's available all over the place. Vegetarians might be successful with cheese soufflé, a savory tart, or vegetables gratin. Vegans and people who dislike cheese should visit some other country.
It might also be interesting to provide some information about "home country" cuisine in appropriate articles: There are American-style steakhouses in France, and McDonald's is everywhere. But Italian visitors to Chicago will be unpleasantly surprised by Chicago-style pizza, and Chinese visitors to America should be warned away from most "Chinese" restaurants, and to attempt only those that name a specific region's cuisine, and even then with an expectation of disappointment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I had a look at Germany#Eat, and it has perhaps changed my views a bit. The #Eat and #Drink sections are about 20% of a very long (~200K) article. I think it's a little weak on some regions, but it mentions a broad range of travel-related needs (e.g., vegetarian, kosher, and celiac). It's generally good content, even if there is room for improvement.
But I'm now thinking that it's probably just too much in one place. My Mac says that it would take 63 pages to print this article out. But I'm not sure whether it makes more sense to talk about splitting some information to a subpage on "German cuisine" (presumably with a focus more on "what to eat while you're there") or "Eating in Germany" (mostly the same content on "where and how to get food"). What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure. But I'll repost here what I just posted at Talk:Japanese cuisine:
"I'd like everyone reading this post to have a look at w:Japanese cuisine and some of the linked articles. I would submit that we do not need a reference article for Japanese cuisine on this site, as Wikipedia provides ample information we could simply link to. Only if there's a specific travel-related angle are articles like this one useful. Right now, I don't see the point at all. Should we do a vfd for the "cuisine of" articles, or is there someone who would like to provide a good rationale for them and make them relevant and truly useful?"
I'll add that I think there's a really good argument for linking Wikipedia articles on cuisine at the beginning of "Eat" sections, and maybe we could discuss this at Wikivoyage talk:External links. I'll bring it up there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that any information about the local food can go into regional articles, because it is only relevant to this particular region and not elsewhere. This will save country articles from unnecessarily long Eat sections and will simultaneously help to expand regional articles.

I also think that the "Cuisine of" articles will only make sense for countries like Italy and France that offer some "culinary tourism" (including, of course, its broad wine-tasting aspects). Such articles should ideally focus on practical aspects of "food&drink" travel. This information is clearly beyond the scope of Wikipedia and should be stored here on Wikivoyage (if at all). --Alexander (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As someone brought up moving German cuisine to its regions; I do not think that's workable, as most aspects of German cuisine that do vary by region are spread across state lines and our current regional subdivision of Germany is based on states. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any problem if certain food aspects are repeated in two regional articles. --Alexander (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renewed discussion for 2022[edit]

The impetus for restarting this discussion is a post by Turaids in an exchange on the Talk:Cambodian cuisine page, which stated in part that: "all Wikivoyage cuisine articles I've seen so far are less useful than their Wikipedia counterparts, so unless Wikivoyage stops simply recycling Wikipedia and starts taking different angles on things that's sadly how it's going to be." So, first of all, is it actually true that no Wikivoyage cuisine article is more useful to travelers than the corresponding Wikipedia article? Secondly, are there cuisines for which it's impossible to imagine how a Wikivoyage article could possibly be as useful as its counterpart at en.wp, and if so, what's the justification for having a Wikivoyage article about that cuisine at all, instead of referring readers to the Wikipedia article? Thirdly, what do we need to do differently to make sure all Wikivoyage cuisine articles have a focus on information of practical interest to travellers? I think we have answers in the thread above; should we itemize them all clearly in one place and create a "how-to" document for editors motivated to create new cuisine articles or edit existing ones on this site?

I also think it's important to take stock of each Wikivoyage cuisine article, both per se and by comparison with its Wikipedia counterpart. I will start doing so below. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've always imagined Wikivoyage as sort of a crowdsourced Lonely Planet, which has a different purpose than an encyclopedia, so everything I could imagine in a Lonely Planet guide I can more or less imagine here. And as there are Lonely Planet guides on a wide array of different cuisines I don't see the specific cuisines being the problem, but rather the content curation. Turaids (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And that's what this thread is about - the content and the extent to which it's of practical use to travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Wikivoyage's usage of cuisine articles is somewhat different. As an example, in Bush tucker, you can see "If you are in the Adelaide area during summer, farmers' markets often have a stall run by Bush Tucker Ice Cream that is worth checking out". That sort of text won't be present in Wikipedia since it's not encyclopedic. It depends on which text you copy from Wikipedia to here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the kind of information that needs to be in Wikivoyage cuisine articles, but how often is it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's true that many of our cuisine articles focus too much on lists of dishes and encyclopedic descriptions and too little on practical travel advice. (Our historical travel topics often have a similar problem.) That said, many of them also have some good practical information. I guess it's a question of improving and adding to the practical information while cutting down the information that duplicates Wikipedia's role. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following post is a bit of a nonsequitur, but I would definitely welcome evaluations of particular cuisine articles by others and discussions below each evaluation. My opinion is (a) not definitive for the site and (b) of no value if no-one pays attention to what I have to say. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion from pub[edit]

Swept in from the pub
Cuisine articles[edit]

Hi, everyone. I think this is a good time for us to take stock of the state of Wikivoyage cuisine articles. See Talk:Food and drink#Renewed discussion for 2022 and Talk:Food and drink#Evaluations of individual cuisine articles: How good are Wikivoyage cuisine articles for the practical traveler? And are all of them still less useful than their English Wikipedia counterparts? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evaluations of individual cuisine articles[edit]

  • American cuisine: w:American cuisine contains loads of encyclopedic history beyond the scope of a travel article and is also more comprehensive in its coverage of regional dishes and ingredients in a way that I think would overwhelm most travelers. However, in looking at American cuisine again, I'm surprised by the length of the various lists, especially the list of ingredients, and I wonder whether they may be a bit long to be user-friendly to most travelers. That said, the Understand and Meals sections provide solid, practical information for the traveler, as do sections such as Diners, Tipping and Snacks. It's not an accident that this guide has been featured.
  • Argentine cuisine: Also a guide-rated article, it contains good bite-sized sections that seem to me as someone who has yet to visit Argentina to be of practical use to the traveller. It's particularly good that the lede section mentions the concerns of vegetarians; "Understand" is very practical, giving a nice overview of the cuisine from a bird's-eye level and telling people the when and what of meals. As I see it, the main advantage of w:Argentine cuisine is its more detailed coverage of regional cuisines. As their regional sections are not overly long, the greater specificity might be good to emulate, particularly if we can mention specific localities that are particularly good places for someone to visit to try great examples of x, y or z.
  • Australian cuisine is a usable article. At a cursory look, it and w:Australian cuisine have different strengths and weaknesses. For example, the Wikivoyage article covers more desserts and has pictures of more of them. However, the "Take-away and convenience foods" section of the Wikipedia article is of obvious practical use to travelers and has no counterpart as of yet in the Wikivoyage article. There is also a bit of coverage of regional foods in the Wikipedia article that the Wikivoyage article appears to lack. Forgetting about comparisons for a moment, the "Meals" section of the Wikivoyage article is inadequate, as it simply mentions two foodstuffs. Instead, what's needed there is information about when meals are eaten, whether restaurants are closed in between standard mealtimes, and any other practical information that's best covered in such a section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Balkan cuisines is barely an outline. w:Balkan cuisine is probably only a bit better, but the best thing about it is that it's an umbrella for a slew of articles listed in "See also", whereas the Wikivoyage article is meant to stand on its own. I'd particularly point to w:Balkan cuisine#Characteristics as having some useful information that's absent from its Wikivoyage counterpart. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merged and redirected as of 22 February, 2022. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merged and redirected to Benelux#Eat. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Brazilian cuisine is quite extensive for a usable-rated article. What it lacks so far is information about meal times and dining etiquette. w:Brazilian cuisine has somewhat more detail, but not to the degree you might expect, and the Wikivoyage article has more information about restaurants and drinks. I think that once meal times and any other important information about meals that might not be obvious is added, we will be able to call this article a guide and nominate it for a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Cuisine of Britain and Ireland is usable-rated but feels like a good guide-level article to me. It includes practical information about types and times of meals and includes a fair number of regional specialities, though a good argument could be made to subdivide the sections into the various nations and possibly add a few more dishes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Cambodian cuisine was started recently and is coming along nicely. It will never have the depth of coverage of the cuisine that's at w:Cambodian cuisine, though, and the Wikipedia article also has a "Meals and eating etiquette" section, which would be of practical importance to visitors. The only things I can think of that should be added to the Wikivoyage article on that topic that are not covered on Wikipedia are whether restaurants and/or stalls close between meal times and what to bring if you are invited to a meal at someone's home. (Should you buy a half a kilo of fresh fruits or more at a market and bring that, as you might in rural Malaysia?) Overall, though, because of the comprehensiveness of the Wikipedia article, I think some thought should be given to what the purpose of even a good Wikivoyage article should be and how to achieve it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Central European cuisines: Certainly better than w:Central European cuisine, except for the Wikivoyage article's total lack of images past the pagebanner, but doesn't seem at all too long and detailed to be merged and redirected to Central Europe#Eat. That said, Hungary and Austria have great cuisines that deserve their own articles if they can somehow be more useful to travellers than w:Austrian cuisine and w:Hungarian cuisine. There is a German cuisine article, plus Wikivoyage articles on Bavarian and Franconian cuisines. I'm not familiar enough with other Central European cuisines to express an opinion about whether good articles about individual national or regional cuisines I haven't mentioned would be likely to be particularly useful to travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just started a thread at Talk:Central European cuisines proposing to merge and redirect the article to Central Europe#Eat. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merged and redirected to Central Europe#Eat (and in smaller part, the "Drink" section of that article) on 7/7/2022. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Chinese cuisine is a great article and was very justly a Featured Travel Topic. The article is certainly more useful to travelers and probably better than w:Chinese cuisine, though the Wikipedia article also has links to subtopics, whereas the Wikivoyage article covers all regions of China without sub-articles on each region's cuisine. Anyone starting a new cuisine article or working hard on editing an existing one should look at this article for inspiration and a good model. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nigerian cuisine I'm not Ikan here to make a final evaluation, but I have to say, this is a reasonable article, and especially given it was only recently created. However, I'm not liking the layout and syntax of the article, along with capitalisation and some of it is written in a first person perspective. However, much of it looks similar to w:Nigerian cuisine just without citations (when I mean that, I mean that it looks awfully encyclopedic, not copied off). What it lacks is which places are known for food, local special(i)ties, but I hope the user who started it will improve it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your remarks. All of this is up for discussion and nothing is a final evaluation. And I don't consider myself more authoritative than anyone else. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No probs. I might do some others evaluations too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 19:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be great. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is some information in Nigerian cuisine which is beneficial and tailored to travellers. The paragraphs about sachet water and soft drinks are interesting, useful to know from a travel perspective and not found in the WP article. As is the information on the relative importance given to each meal (breakfast, lunch and dinner) in Nigerian culture. There are definitely positive signs though like nearly every article has scope for improvement. Gizza (roam) 04:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think those should be included. Those aren't actually Singaporean food, given that you can't find them in Singapore. The dog2 (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, I guess the Wikipedia's subheading is quite misleading... SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Separate cuisine articles considered harmful[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Do we really need to separate out a single country's food/drink into separate articles, like Vietnam#Eat vs Vietnamese cuisine? Most readers will not click through on the little Main links, so in practice this seems to lead to an awful lot of duplication, since anything dropped from the main article just gets added back in because it's "missing". The size savings are marginal, eg. Vietnamese cuisine is 20k bytes vs over 150k for Vietnam even with the sad, truncated food section. Jpatokal (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jpatokal: I'm not so sure on this one. Some cuisine articles such as American cuisine have an awful lot of encyclopedic content, while others like Thai cuisine or Central European cuisines don't duplicate their parent articles, they simply aren't long enough to warrant a separate article. We do have a lot of other good cuisine articles like Georgian cuisine or Chinese cuisine that ideally all cuisine articles should follow suit. But what about Overseas Chinese cuisine? It obviously doesn't go in China#Eat, and is way too long to go in the 76,733-byte Chinese cuisine article. We did have a discussion about these cuisine articles earlier this year (see Talk:Food and drink#Renewed discussion for 2022), so maybe it's time to revive that discussion again. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had only gotten started looking through cuisine articles here and comparing them to their Wikipedia counterparts and any Wikipedia subtopic article, with some help from you and several other people, but it would be good to complete the survey, even if only to start again, because of course some articles have been significantly improved since I started. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instead of getting bogged down in individual articles, I would suggest we go up a level and get agreement on a) when separate cuisine articles are needed/beneficial, and b) how do we draw the line between what goes into the main article and what should go into the cuisine article. Jpatokal (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, if you haven't looked at the discussion thread linked above, do, because we've already gotten into that discussion in regard to several articles, but at the simplest level, the reason to start a "cuisine" article is if and when there's too much information for it to really fit in a country (or sometimes region) article, just as is the case with "Driving in" articles and so forth. And whenever that happens, a summary should be left in the relevant section of the country article, with a link to the spinoff article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps we can reorganise these articles by region instead of by ingredients and types of dishes. Then we can describe what to expect of the cuisines of each region, and what dishes to try. The dog2 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what you mean, in particular by "region," which can mean a group of several countries or an area within a country. If you mean a group of countries, I don't know how logical it would be to conflate Vietnamese, Thai, Indonesian and Burmese cuisines, just because they're all in Southeast Asia, or for that matter, Spanish, French and German cuisines because they're all in Europe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could discuss your suggestion more at the linked thread, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In the case of Vietnamese cuisine, we could discuss the differences between Northern, Central and Southern Vietnamese cuisines, and if someone knows enough, perhaps some of the ethnic minority cuisines as well. And likewise, Thai cuisine can be broadly divided into Lanna, Isaan, Central Thai and Southern Thai cuisines. And in the case of Malaysia, there are also many local specialities, so laksa in Penang is not the same as laksa in Sarawak for instance. Unfortunately, I have never been to Kajang, but I have been told that their satay is a little different from our satay in Singapore. 19:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course. As this is a travel guide, we need all articles to focus on travel, and letting people know what dishes you can expect in x, y and z region and whether there's a particular place or set of places to get the best a and b should be part of the heart of Wikivoyage cuisine articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Precisely, so I am suggesting this as a way to make the cuisine articles more directly relevant to travel. So people can then know what to expect as they travel around the country. The dog2 (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ikan Kekek: "if and when there's too much information for it to really fit in a country" So where do we draw the line at what's "too much information"? AFAIK there's no real technical limit (Mediawiki caps out at 2 MB per page), so is the concern that people won't scroll if it gets too long, that the articles will devolve into encyclopedic lists of dishes, or what?

Also, "Driving in X" articles are only relevant to people who want to drive in X. Everybody has to eat, and we don't spin out "Sleeping in X" articles (even when that section gets really long, eg Japan#Sleep), so I don't think we should do that for any other top-level heading either. I have no objection to regional cuisine articles spanning several countries though, as long as they form a cohesive whole (Singaporean and Malaysian, sure; "Asian", nope). Jpatokal (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You make good points. Of course, "too much information" is always a judgment call. I'd again invite you to have a look at Talk:Food and drink#Renewed discussion for 2022. I do have some preliminary thoughts, though: Yes, everyone has to eat, but not everyone cares greatly what they eat, as long as it's in their price range, doesn't make them sick and gives them energy. I know people like that. And then there's a continuum, the other end of which would be a trip specifically or mainly to dine. Similarly, we have a Grand old hotels article for people who prioritize a particular type of accommodations and have or save up money to indulge. Leaving a useful summary is not the same as merging an article like Georgian cuisine into the Georgia (country) article. If you'd favor doing that, we really have something to talk about, and I suppose since this discussion is continuing here, it'll eventually be swept to Talk:Food and drink. I would note that some cuisine articles have been judged to be too short and light on information to stand on their own and have been merged and redirected to the "Eat" sections of country or even multi-country region articles. See Talk:Balkan cuisines, Talk:Benelux cuisines. I feel like we can and should judge each "Eat" section and each cuisine article on its own, but if you'd like to propose to merge and redirect every one to "Name of Country#Eat", I would suggest to you that that is not optimal, but that if you want to make that suggestion, you have to argue that in regard to the very best cuisine articles on the site, the ones that are guide-rated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jpatokal, I just looked at Vietnamese cuisine. It's not very good, and for an "Eat" section, Vietnam#Eat is quite a detailed summary that I think is more tightly organized than the cuisine article. I agree with The dog2 that reorganizing the article by region, with remarks about the character of regional cuisines and then subsections by type of dish, may be more helpful that the current organization. Right now, I definitely see why you could prefer to just merge the additional information and redirect, and I don't oppose that outcome, as the watchword, as always, is The traveller comes first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to spinning off Sleep sections into "Accommodation in X" if the section gets too long. There are detailed blogs and online articles on the hotels/motels, campsites, Airbnb sitautionm etc. of a particular destination so it is certainly feasible. I suspect they haven't been created because the topic in general is more boring than cuisine, shopping or other sections. Gizza (roam) 03:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Everyone has to eat", but not everyone wants to explore the cuisine of a country. There are people who travel to other countries to see the sights, but prefer to seek out familiar cuisine or eat only in their hotels.
When a subject is branched off from a country article, usually it ends up being expanded because writers no longer feel the constraint of overwhelming the main article, so more information is available to readers. There should always be a concise summary in the country article, but details should be branched off. Ground Zero (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Food vs cuisine[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Most of our articles about national or regional cuisines use the word "cuisine" in their title like Japanese cuisine and French cuisine but some use the word "food" like Mexican food. Firstly, should we be consistent and adopt one word and if so, which word should we use?

From the small amount of research I did, my gut feel is to use the "food". I used WordTracker to look at four search terms and their usage globally in the last month across all major search engines.

Search term Volume IAAT Comp KEI
Food 140227 422349 46.06 64.29
Cuisine 36122 101932 33.83 64.55
Chinese Food 4466 499 10.66 76.83
Chinese cuisine 762 764 11.69 68.71

Volume is the number of times this phrased was searched exactly. IAAT is the count of webpages on which the search term appears. Comp is how much competition there is for the keyword (how many websites are trying to get a slice of the SEO pie) and KEI is Key Effectiveness Index, a combination of how popular a word is and the level of competition (more popular increase the number while more competition reduces it). Essentially we should using words that are high KEI.

In this case, there are many people typing Chinese food in Google but there aren't as many websites using that phrase compared to Chinese cuisine. I think this is people usually type common easy words, not technical terms. Wikipedia uses cuisine which makes sense because encyclopedias use formal words but we should have the traveller in mind.

Also I was looking at the site rankings of some of our competitors like Lonely Planet, DK Eyewitness Travel, Rough Guides with Alexa and similar sites, and I noticed that Rough Guides gets a significant percentage of their traffic from the phrase "Vietnamese food". I suspected that not many people would write cuisine. Gizza (roam) 09:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huh. I think I actually use these words to mean different things. Chinese and Mexican "food" are what you (don't) get in major Western countries (i.e., the stuff described in Mexican food#International versions, and Chinese and Mexican "cuisine" are what you get when you're in China and Mexico, respectively. I wonder if anyone else uses these phrases the same way that I do.
Also, I wonder whether you'd get the same results if you compare "French food" vs "French cuisine". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would settle for food. It is shorter, more straightforward, and better understood by learners of English (with the exception of French). /Yvwv (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure those articles were attempted with the same intention or outset. And I agree that XYZ "food" and XYZ "cuisine" are not necessarily always the same thing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I would definitely not draw that distinction. If I get Chinese/Mexican food that just means that I got an individual dish or meal. But Chinese/Mexican cuisine is the tradition of food from those places. Contextually "x food can also mean the latter. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure why, but to me "food" conjures an image of something basic and gourmand (like "fast food") and cuisine something more pretentious and elaborate (like « haute cuisine »)? K7L (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because of the inherent 'prestige' of the French word 'cuisine', versus the English words 'cooking' or 'food'. I don't think there's a difference, except the perceptions people have of the food from certain countries, hence Japanese and French "cuisine", but Mexican "food". --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate there is some desire to tighten things up around here (see the epic struggle around airline redirects) but seriously how is this going to improve the WV travel guide? I'm going to mark myself down as doubtful that changing some words will impact our SEO in any significant way. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
American food could be McDonald's. American cuisine is either good home cooking or the stuff you get at good diners, barbecues, "new American" or "classic American" restaurants, etc. I would suggest using "cuisine" exclusively, except for articles about fast food and "casual dining" chain restaurants. "French food" sounds very lowest-common-denominator. "French cuisine" sounds excellent. Let's go for excellence, please. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All but one of those articles has "cuisine" in the title. Some talk a great deal about cuisine in the body of the article. For those that are about cuisine, why not keep that in the title and make a redirect from the term containing "food". Then they will be found by either search term. In fact, the Mexican food article refers to "cuisine" more than "food", so if consistency was desired, that would be the article title to change. Nurg (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second everything you say 100%. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think as wikivoyage we should on occasion embrace our inner frenchiness, even though or maybe because of the times we live in are ones where "coastal elites" are openly mocked. In a bit more seriousness though, Mexican food (which I originally intended as a counterpart to fast food in North America when the latter was still called that, should probably be moved to Mexican cuisine Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have moved the article accordingly: It is now indeed the Mexican cuisine article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template for food articles[edit]

Having tried in 15 minutes to digest all these "Talk" entries, wonder if articles focused just on food/cuisine/dining/whatever could benefit from a well-considered template? Looked at currently approved templates for articles and didn't see one. Example: Since food is a topic dear to me, and with wife not inclined to be adventurous, would appreciate coverage of safety. Surely the above contributors and others have more suggestions. Regards, Hennejohn (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Might be a good idea. Would you like to create a mockup of a template in your sandbox and link it here for discussion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Swept in from the pub

Which use of "dinner" is preferred in articles?

  • don't use it at all: breakfast, lunch, and supper (the least confusing option, in my opinion)
  • use it in place of "supper", as in the UK: breakfast, lunch, and dinner
  • use it in place of "lunch", as in the US: breakfast, dinner, and supper

--Robkelk (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry? No one in the U.S. calls lunch "dinner", and "supper" is a somewhat archaic regional synonym for the evening meal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, not lunch, then. --Robkelk (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Dinner" in the US is theoretically the main/largest meal of the day, which, assuming that you were on a farm and that you were living before World War I, was the middle of the day. The largest meal is now generally the evening meal, except for holidays (dinner on Thanksgiving Day might start as early as noon) and on Sundays for those (mostly elderly people) who want a fancy meal after church services are over, so a dinner invitation from anyone under the age of 75 is understood to be in the evening unless otherwise specified.
"Supper" is theoretically smaller than dinner (i.e., your last list is technically correct, but not a pattern Americans use much any longer), with possibly the most delightful version being breakfast in bed at 8:00 a.m., dinner at 1:00 p.m., afternoon tea at 4:00 p.m., the opera at 8:00 p.m., and supper at 11:00 p.m. (This schedule assumes that you don't have reservations at the Grand Tier Restaurant at the Met, and thus won't be eating your main course before the curtain rises and your dessert during intermission.)
As to how they are used: "dinner" and "supper" are generally considered synonyms. "Dinner" feels fancier, and it is the term that most upscale restaurants seem to prefer. "Supper" is unambiguous about the time of day. If you're writing paragraphs, then occasionally substituting the phrase evening meal would bypass the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe supper and dinner are used interchangeably depending on the region in the US. Perhaps it's my region, but when I was growing up dinner had fancier connotations and was eaten later in the evening (6-8pm) compared to a supper (5-6 pm). Today I rarely hear or use supper. I also don't notice the usage of either relating to the time one eats beyond it being eaten after 5pm. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
British & Irish usage has evolved in a similar way. Scottish hospitable greeting: "Eh, but ye'll have had your tea??" Grahamsands (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Singapore, we say "breakfast", "lunch" and "dinner", while "supper" refers to a very late night meal that is eaten after dinner (~9pm or later), and is often not eaten at all. And at least in the parts of Australia and the U.S. that I have lived in, it's also "breakfast", "lunch" and "dinner". But that said, when read Enid Blyton books as a kid, they used "breakfast", "dinner" and "supper", and Enid Blyton was most certainly a British author, so I'm not sure if that usage is a British regionalism, or is it standard British English? The dog2 (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having "dinner" refer to the largest meal of the day is too confusing since for nutritional/health reasons, breakfast should be the largest meal of the day! Just use "dinner" for the evening meal, that will be understood by most people. ArticCynda (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(indent) "Dinner" to me is the third meal of the day regardless of how much or little you eat. The way I tend to hear "supper" used in the US is strictly for use when dinner is prepared at home. I've never heard of anyone "going out for supper". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not forget second breakfast and afternoon tea!--Traveler100 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and brunch. K7L (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And elevenses!
Artic, I believe that having the main meal in the middle of the day was established for the convenience of the cook, in centuries when under-nutrition was the main food-related health concern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems reasonable yes, I can imagine it wasn't very pleasant to prepare a main meal under candle light in winter when days are short, so convenience for the cook probably played a role there. ArticCynda (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eat or Drink?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Which section - 'Eat' or 'Drink' - is most appropriate for places which specialise in afternoon tea? There are of course many hotels which serve afternoon tea, and their place in an article is clear, but there are also tearooms which aren't attached to a restaurant or hotel.

For those who don't know, tea is a meal inasmuch as a lot of food (i.e. more than a snack amount, and potentially enough to stuff yourself depending on how greedy and/or rich you're feeling) is typically consumed, but the main focus is a pot of tea (the drink), and there will always be a lot of blends to choose from. The food, while significant in quantity and served on a platter or one of those tiered stacks, is made up of things which by themselves are just light bites: cakes, scones, small sandwiches, toasted buns, fruit etc. Some upmarket places - like this example - offer a glass of champagne with the tea. Places like the example typically don't serve full cooked meals at other times of the day; tea is all they do, all day every day.

So I'm wondering which section of an article they belong in? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a judgment call, based on your determination of whether the tea or the food is more important. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess so. It's just...thinking for hard :P --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was my understanding that the drink section was geared more towards nightlife (bars, clubs, etc.) HOWEVER: In the manual of style [1] it also lists things like bar & grills and tea/coffee houses with a note beside saying those could go into an eat listing as well. So no matter what you do, it won't be "wrong" and you can plunge boldly. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would put a complete afternoon tea in "eat", as I would regard it as a replacement for lunch. If I couldn't find any pubs to go in drink, then a tearoom where a pot of tea with one scone was usual would go in "drink". AlasdairW (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your perspectives. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say the same thing as Ikan; if you usually go there to have a cup of tea and occasionally some snacks or a sandwich, then it's certainly a Drink listing. If people in general go there to have a meal, then it's an Eat. If really unsure, I put the listing in Eat. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be inclined to stick "afternoon tea" in the British sense (an afternoon meal break where tea is served with food) in "eat" as the "eat" and "drink" categories were originally intended to be analogous to the "restaurants" and "nightlife" sections of other travel guides. My guess is that the meaning of words shift because you are speaking English instead of whatever Americanised rubbish we're speaking here in the colonies; here "tea" means literally the beverage, but English usage has it as a meal break, pushing it into "eat" with the food listings. K7L (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all the opinions; putting it under 'Eat' is what I've done. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dinner theatre?[edit]

Where can I stick it? There are two Buena Park#See listings for "dinner theatre" which look to be in the wrong section; dinner should be "eat" and theatre should be "do" as an activity, but "dinner theatre" isn't listed on WYCSI at all. Would it be reasonable for me to cite the placement of "comedy club" in "drink" (as nightlife) as a basis to add "dinner theatre" to WYCSI as "eat" with the rest of the restaurant listings? K7L (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Putting it under 'Eat' makes sense, but I guess it kind of depends how big a deal the theatre/dinner aspects of it are. If the plays are eligible for industry awards, or widely recognised for the brilliant performances, a dinner theatre could arguably go in 'Do', whereas if people go for the food primarily then it's certainly an 'Eat'. Although I have no experience of this as there's only one such venue in the whole of the UK, it presumably depends on which between eating and theatre is the biggest draw.
For tea, I ended up creating a new section under the 'Eat' heading. For places where there are several dinner theatres around, that might be something which could be done.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I'd stick this under "Eat" (maybe in a separate subsection), but there's a solid argument in favor of "Do". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I've updated Buena Park#Eat and Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it accordingly. K7L (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, I disagree with comedy clubs belonging in "Drink". Stand-up comedy is a form of nightlife only secondarily at best; at its heart, it's a performance along similar lines as live music. If concert halls belong in "Do", so do comedy clubs. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recall raising the same issue in 2013. K7L (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Dinner theater says "Sometimes the play is incidental entertainment, secondary to the meal, in the style of a night club, or the play may be the main feature of the evening, with dinner less important or, in some cases, optional." Medieval Times Tournament and Dinner Show (one at Buena Park) has a cast of about 75 actors and 20 horses that perform in a large arena. Pirates Dinner Adventure (the other at Buena Park) also looks to have a large cast and large set (a galleon). It looks like the main feature would be the shows, rather than the dinner. I say "Do". Nurg (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would usually put dinner theatre in "Do", as I did a few months ago in the Greensboro article. I think of dinner theatre as much more than just a meal, and I would expect to see it listed with other performances and activities rather than with ordinary restaurants. But in cases where the show is less important and the meal is the main draw, I can see putting them in "Eat". Glancing at the websites for the Buena Park listings, I agree with Nurg's impression that these two seem like they fit better in "Do". —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. I've moved them to Buena Park#Do as there wasn't much there except for the one large amusement park. K7L (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative banner[edit]

I have created an alternative banner for this article. See:

Current banner
File:Food Wikivoyage Banner.jpg
Alternative banner

Go to the edit history of this article and you can see how the alternative looked (I added it for a while on Feb. 14). But for now, we can vote here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The alternative would be better placed at Fruits and vegetables, though I like that article's current banner better for the topic. For this article, I'd support keeping the current banner for now, because it shows both food and drink (the teapot), though in the future, it would be nice to use a sharper photo (as the alternate banner is). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. /Yvwv (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Talk:Fruits and vegetables. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative banner #2[edit]

Current banner
Alternative banner

No drinks, I know, but shows a variety of kinds of food. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original. The proposed replacement is overexposed and not as interesting, either. Other than that, I think it's the greatest! :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. I'll keep looking in future for a banner that would work. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alternative banner

Here's another thought, though I wasn't thrilled with the result. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's quite good, though the fact that it doesn't include any drinks gives me pause. But it's a very good photo, IMO, and much sharper than the current banner. I'd like to see some other input on it, but I would not oppose a substitution, although I'm not impelled to support it, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although the image quality of this one is better, I think the action shot showing a meal is better than some cold cuts on a tray. Others may disagree. I support the effort to come up with a better banner for this article, I just don't think this one is there yet. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, something from a restaurant would be nice if we can find one. But if not, this is certainly an improvement. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One should eat to live, not live to eat.[edit]

Doesn't that express the opposite sentiment to that which guides most travellers' eating ventures? At home, we should maintain a healthy lifestyle, a balanced diet etc ("eating to live"), but when travelling, if you're not tucking into the local cuisine with gusto and trying new things ("living to eat"), then I'd suggest there's something wrong with you. Can we find a better quotation about the joy of discovering food when travelling? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh well, I can't resist aiming a boulder on current Brazilian president, who proudly tweets photos of himself cooking instant noodles on his room every time he goes abroad. As for myself, if I could afford it, would every month spend two weekends in Belém and the other two in Lisbon just to indulge in eating pleasures. "Every person inside his/hers own square", as says the chorus of a 2005 Brazilian radio hit. Ibaman (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That halfwit does know instant noodles are foreign, right? ;-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, that does convey exactly the opposite of what we want on this article. Finding a better replacement is tough, though. Here are a couple I found, but I'm not in love with any of them:
  • The gentle art of gastronomy is a friendly one. It hurdles the language barrier, makes friends among civilized people, and warms the heart. --Samuel Chamberlain
  • One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well. --Virginia Woolf
  • If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. --J.R.R. Tolkien
  • There is no love sincerer than the love of food. --George Bernard Shaw
  • Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food. --Hippocrates
  • Your body is not a temple, it's an amusement park. Enjoy the ride. --Anthony Bourdain
I quite like this one, but it probably belongs better on Alcohol than here:
  • Drink heavily with locals whenever possible. --Anthony Bourdain
--Bigpeteb (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like these quotes. I think the best ones are the quotes by Virginia Woolf, George Bernard Shaw, and Hippocrates (with the quote by Virginia Woolf being the best suited here). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)Thanks for doing that :) I like a few of those, including the alcohol one - I'll go ahead and add it right away, if there's a place for it. Among the foodie ones, Chamberlain, Woolf, and Shaw stand out. Chamberlain is the most apt for travel, though the other two benefit from being less wordy.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe the "eat to live, not live to eat" quote more has to do with the fact that you shouldn't eat more than your body can use or else you'll end up obese. That said, any of the above would be a better quote to have on top of the article (if there has to be a quote there). --Ypsilon (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's exactly what it means, but if you can't treat yourself when on holiday, when can you?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's good to include a quote at the beginning of the article because it sets a good tone. Quotes are somewhat casual but not too casual, which matches well with the tone of this website in general. It also helps to engage the reader in the topic of the upcoming article. Therefore, I would support changing the quote rather than removing the existing one. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally agree that the current page quote is the opposite of what we want on this page and should be replaced. Thank you, ThunderingTyphoons! for bringing it up Bigpeteb for finding other quotes. I love the Hippocrates quote, but I think the most travel-appropriate quotes above are the Chamberlain and the Tolkien, though the Tolkien is a bit preachy (however, I certainly agree with the message). The Woolf is a great quote, too, but overall, the Chamberlain is my favorite for this page. I commented on the "drink heavily" quote at Talk:Alcoholic beverages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think the most travel-relevant one is Chamberlain, though I like the Tolkein and Woolf ones as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was consensus to change, so I've changed. I picked Woolf, because the most people (4) said they liked it. The runner up with 3 was Chamberlain.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The American custom to cut all food on the plate, and eat with the fork in the right hand, is commonly accepted"[edit]

So says the Food and drink#Manners section. I changed the clause by adding "outside Europe", because every country I've been to in Europe eats in the European way. But out of curiosity, I'd like to repeat the question I wrote in my edit summary; where in the world do people eat in the American way? It is a genuine question, as I haven't travelled much outside Europe. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThunderingTyphoons!, I'm curious about this "cut all food on the plate" bit. Where, exactly, does the rest of the world cut their food? In the kitchen? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the key point is "eat with the fork in the right hand". This suggests cutting up all the food on the plate, before eating any of it and moving the fork from the left hand to the right hand between the cutting and eating stages. This is distinct from the approach of cutting one piece off and then eating it before cutting any more. (In some countries it is common to do all the cutting in the kitchen, and then eat using chopsticks.) AlasdairW (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In proper American table manners, one does not cut all the food before eating. That is only done for people who can feed themselves but cannot be trusted with knives (e.g., toddlers).
The proper handling for knives and forks in the US is the very old European style: With the fork in the left hand and knife in the right hand, cut one bit of food. Put the knife down on the plate and switch the fork to the right hand to scoop up the food (on the curved inward side, as if with a spoon, not on the back of the fork; also, not stabbing the food). Then you switch the fork back to your left hand and pick the up knife with your right hand to repeat the process.
I suspect the person who invented this was extremely right handed. As a person who is somewhere between left-handed and ambidextrous and also has arthritis, it is not the model I personally use. But it is the correct version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you. (By the way, I'm right-handed, but as a flutist, I use my left hand a lot, too, and I found the European method of keeping the knife in the left hand and the fork in the right hand more efficient, so I use it the great majority of the time.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always thought standard European table manners dictates that it should be fork in left and knife in right, and American table manners are pretty much the same in formal settings. To my knowledge, Americans just tend to be more casual, so while in Europe, you need to peel off a small piece of bread, then spread the butter on the small piece before putting the entire piece in your mouth, Americans are generally OK if you spread the butter on the entire slice of bread, then start biting each piece off. The dog2 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe some Americans, particularly some of those who've traveled to Europe, have adopted European conventions like I have, but WhatamIdoing is correct. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The correct way to eat a piece of bread (e.g., a bread roll) in US manners is to use your fingers to break off a piece equal to two bites, butter that, and eat it in two bites. By contrast, in France, you break off a piece that is a suitable size for one bite, and there is no butter.
This rule assumes, however, that we're talking about an ordinary yeast-based dinner roll or a slice of something like a baguette. The rules are different for things like baking powder biscuits (butter while hot) and cornbread (butter while hot, and eat with a fork). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New banner proposal[edit]

Banner currently used in this article
Suggested new alternative banner

The current banner for this article is very blurry at full view, and this talk page shows other people bringing up the issue too. I've mocked up a new one -- thoughts? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, but the proposed replacement isn't much less blurry and is less interesting and doesn't show anyone eating. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]