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]

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]
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]

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]

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

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]

"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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

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]

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]
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]

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]

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]
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]
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]
@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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
I second everything you say 100%. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[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]
I have moved the article accordingly: It is now indeed the Mexican cuisine article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[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]

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]


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]

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]
So, not lunch, then. --Robkelk (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

(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]

I do not forget second breakfast and afternoon tea!--Traveler100 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...and brunch. K7L (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[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]
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]

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]

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]
I guess so. It's just...thinking for hard :P --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[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]
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]
Thank you for your perspectives. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[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]
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]
Thanks for all the opinions; putting it under 'Eat' is what I've done. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[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]

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]
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]
Thanks. I've updated Buena Park#Eat and Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it accordingly. K7L (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[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]
I recall raising the same issue in 2013. K7L (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[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]

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]
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]

Alternative banner[edit]

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

Current 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]

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]
Agree. /Yvwv (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Fruits and vegetables. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[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]

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]
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]
Excellent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[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]

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]
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]
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]

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]

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]
That halfwit does know instant noodles are foreign, right? ;-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
(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]
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]
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]

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]

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]
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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]