This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Whenever I travel abroad for Business trip. I dream and love Korean BBQ " Yummy". The lunch special is a Heaven. I miss so much two scoop of rice, Kalbi, one scoope of Marcaroni, Korean side dish. Whenever I land in Hawaii. Yummy Korean BBQ is my first visit. It's how I recooperate my energy from along Business trip.
I'm proposing merging
Hawaiian Barbecue into this article since it describes the same thing, Hawaiian Barbecue being a name that L&L came up with when they expanded to the mainland. --
Hawaiian717
01:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is that phrase supposed to mean? Can someone edit the article to clarify? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.15.115.165 ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC-7)
Does "plate" describe "lunch" or does "lunch" describe "plate"? "Plate lunch" seems to mean "lunch on a plate", whereas "lunch plate" seems to mean "a plate of lunch". Which is a better description? I just want to clarify so that I can tweak the Hawaiian term if necessary. — Kal (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
roughly equivalent to a Southern U.S. meat-and-threes plate
If you're going to distinguish the 'hanbag' with gravy (which is very popular in Japan - especially on kids' menus; the closest thing in genuine US cuisine is the Salisbury Steak [which you hardly see these days outside of maybe some retro buffets]) as being a purely American contribution to the plate lunch, why describe chicken katsu as being natively Japanese? Even on the 'katsu' article here on wikipedia, it explains that this dish is not natively Japanese, and that 'katsu' comes from the English word "cutlet," or "cuts," for short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.109.230 ( talk) 02:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
No one ever calls it by the Hawaiian name. Therefore I don't think that should be in the lead, as it just confuses matters. Put it in a footnote only, if it has to be in the article at all. We don't put the Hawaiian word for every article concerning Hawaii, unless it's commonly used, so I'm not sure why this popped up here to muddy the waters. Softlavender ( talk) 12:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The photo in the lede isn't really accurate because it doesn't have a scoop of macaroni salad. Need to use a photo that's accurate. There's one in the gallery at the bottom; it's rather dark but at least it's what it should be. If no other option, the two photos should be swapped. Softlavender ( talk) 12:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't have time to edit it at the moment (just to gripe about it), but "plate lunch" is used often in the South, and NOT to indicate some sort of Asian-food experience. For the article to start off defining it as Hawaiian is misleading, though obviously that is one kind of "plate lunch." -- Tbanderson ( talk) 20:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Ferretsrock, as I explained on your talk page, you need to discuss on this Talk page and establish consensus before restoring edits you made which have been reverted. As I also linked on your talk page, per WP:BRD, the person changing the article has the burden to make their case; until that time the status quo is maintained. Again, I strongly encourage you to follow Wikipedia policies and avoid edit-warring in order to avoid being blocked from editing. Softlavender ( talk) 01:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
>>I responded to you on the next page down, please read my post in this talk page.
Ferretsrock (
talk)
01:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Ferretsrock
I changed this article at the top because it said "A plate lunch is a quintessentially Hawaiian meal", and didn't understand what "quintessentially" meant. And I am VERY smart. Graduated with honors, 4.0 GPA and such. And I'm saying this as a common, everyday person, being smart (not trying at all to boast here, I'm trying to prove a point), I still didn't understand what quintessential meant. I went and I conducted a survey to ask people if they knew what "quintessential" meant, and 89% of the people did not know what it meant. And that was a survey conducted on a complete variety of random everyday people just like you and I.
Therefore, I found it better for the article to be changed after I looked up the definition and changed it to something that a broader spectrum of everyday Wikipedia readers could understand: I changed it to this instead:
"A plate lunch is essentially known as a typical Hawaiian meal", because that's what it is! It's a typical Hawaiian meal served on a plate. Very easy to read, understand, everyone can understand it, not just the 11% of everyday people that knew what "quintessential" meant. Therefore, I don't think there was any harm done....But for some reason I was reverted twice for making this simple change. I explained why it was constructive editing for the article, but there wasn't even a reason for why it was changed back to the very unknown, confusing word "quintessential".
Another thing is that there were issues with quotes in this article. I'm a grammar freak and noticed that there were a lot of things wrong with the quotes here, with capitalization issues and run-on sentences and so on and so forth, so I went and read the entire article that was cited on this Wiki page, in that particular part of the page where a quote was laid out. I noticed that it was not correctly placed in the Wiki page so I edited it and my edit was reverted!! That's something I don't understand as well, about why the hell that was reverted! I place a direct quote in the article with correct grammar and punctuation and such and it gets reverted to the non-grammatically correct version, saying that I can't "mess with quotes", when I didn't mess with the quote! I went to the article and put it EXACTLY as it was said in the article! That's why they call it a direct quote, right?
Anyway, now I'm being accused of edit-warring, when there's no way in hell that I would want to willingly do that. I try to make honest, constructive, FAIR edits to this article and get it changed back continuously and then what. What the hell am I supposed to do then? For crying out loud......
Ferretsrock ( talk) 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Ferretsrock
OH, and forgot to mention. Meat-and-threes. Not everyone knows that a meat-and-three is! It is a type of restaurant and it is HARMLESS to the article to say that it is a meat-and-three RESTAURANT, it shouldn't at all matter that I put it as a meat-and-three restaurant, not just a meat-and-three. Putting restaurant after meat-and-three makes it EASY to know what a meat-and-three is. One shouldn't have to investigate what something means when a simple word can be added at the end to cover that. AND it shouldn't be reverted BACK when there has been a logical and fair explanation for why an edit was made.
Ferretsrock (
talk)
01:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Ferretsrock
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Whenever I travel abroad for Business trip. I dream and love Korean BBQ " Yummy". The lunch special is a Heaven. I miss so much two scoop of rice, Kalbi, one scoope of Marcaroni, Korean side dish. Whenever I land in Hawaii. Yummy Korean BBQ is my first visit. It's how I recooperate my energy from along Business trip.
I'm proposing merging
Hawaiian Barbecue into this article since it describes the same thing, Hawaiian Barbecue being a name that L&L came up with when they expanded to the mainland. --
Hawaiian717
01:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is that phrase supposed to mean? Can someone edit the article to clarify? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.15.115.165 ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC-7)
Does "plate" describe "lunch" or does "lunch" describe "plate"? "Plate lunch" seems to mean "lunch on a plate", whereas "lunch plate" seems to mean "a plate of lunch". Which is a better description? I just want to clarify so that I can tweak the Hawaiian term if necessary. — Kal (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
roughly equivalent to a Southern U.S. meat-and-threes plate
If you're going to distinguish the 'hanbag' with gravy (which is very popular in Japan - especially on kids' menus; the closest thing in genuine US cuisine is the Salisbury Steak [which you hardly see these days outside of maybe some retro buffets]) as being a purely American contribution to the plate lunch, why describe chicken katsu as being natively Japanese? Even on the 'katsu' article here on wikipedia, it explains that this dish is not natively Japanese, and that 'katsu' comes from the English word "cutlet," or "cuts," for short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.109.230 ( talk) 02:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
No one ever calls it by the Hawaiian name. Therefore I don't think that should be in the lead, as it just confuses matters. Put it in a footnote only, if it has to be in the article at all. We don't put the Hawaiian word for every article concerning Hawaii, unless it's commonly used, so I'm not sure why this popped up here to muddy the waters. Softlavender ( talk) 12:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The photo in the lede isn't really accurate because it doesn't have a scoop of macaroni salad. Need to use a photo that's accurate. There's one in the gallery at the bottom; it's rather dark but at least it's what it should be. If no other option, the two photos should be swapped. Softlavender ( talk) 12:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't have time to edit it at the moment (just to gripe about it), but "plate lunch" is used often in the South, and NOT to indicate some sort of Asian-food experience. For the article to start off defining it as Hawaiian is misleading, though obviously that is one kind of "plate lunch." -- Tbanderson ( talk) 20:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Ferretsrock, as I explained on your talk page, you need to discuss on this Talk page and establish consensus before restoring edits you made which have been reverted. As I also linked on your talk page, per WP:BRD, the person changing the article has the burden to make their case; until that time the status quo is maintained. Again, I strongly encourage you to follow Wikipedia policies and avoid edit-warring in order to avoid being blocked from editing. Softlavender ( talk) 01:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
>>I responded to you on the next page down, please read my post in this talk page.
Ferretsrock (
talk)
01:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Ferretsrock
I changed this article at the top because it said "A plate lunch is a quintessentially Hawaiian meal", and didn't understand what "quintessentially" meant. And I am VERY smart. Graduated with honors, 4.0 GPA and such. And I'm saying this as a common, everyday person, being smart (not trying at all to boast here, I'm trying to prove a point), I still didn't understand what quintessential meant. I went and I conducted a survey to ask people if they knew what "quintessential" meant, and 89% of the people did not know what it meant. And that was a survey conducted on a complete variety of random everyday people just like you and I.
Therefore, I found it better for the article to be changed after I looked up the definition and changed it to something that a broader spectrum of everyday Wikipedia readers could understand: I changed it to this instead:
"A plate lunch is essentially known as a typical Hawaiian meal", because that's what it is! It's a typical Hawaiian meal served on a plate. Very easy to read, understand, everyone can understand it, not just the 11% of everyday people that knew what "quintessential" meant. Therefore, I don't think there was any harm done....But for some reason I was reverted twice for making this simple change. I explained why it was constructive editing for the article, but there wasn't even a reason for why it was changed back to the very unknown, confusing word "quintessential".
Another thing is that there were issues with quotes in this article. I'm a grammar freak and noticed that there were a lot of things wrong with the quotes here, with capitalization issues and run-on sentences and so on and so forth, so I went and read the entire article that was cited on this Wiki page, in that particular part of the page where a quote was laid out. I noticed that it was not correctly placed in the Wiki page so I edited it and my edit was reverted!! That's something I don't understand as well, about why the hell that was reverted! I place a direct quote in the article with correct grammar and punctuation and such and it gets reverted to the non-grammatically correct version, saying that I can't "mess with quotes", when I didn't mess with the quote! I went to the article and put it EXACTLY as it was said in the article! That's why they call it a direct quote, right?
Anyway, now I'm being accused of edit-warring, when there's no way in hell that I would want to willingly do that. I try to make honest, constructive, FAIR edits to this article and get it changed back continuously and then what. What the hell am I supposed to do then? For crying out loud......
Ferretsrock ( talk) 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Ferretsrock
OH, and forgot to mention. Meat-and-threes. Not everyone knows that a meat-and-three is! It is a type of restaurant and it is HARMLESS to the article to say that it is a meat-and-three RESTAURANT, it shouldn't at all matter that I put it as a meat-and-three restaurant, not just a meat-and-three. Putting restaurant after meat-and-three makes it EASY to know what a meat-and-three is. One shouldn't have to investigate what something means when a simple word can be added at the end to cover that. AND it shouldn't be reverted BACK when there has been a logical and fair explanation for why an edit was made.
Ferretsrock (
talk)
01:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Ferretsrock