![]() | This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
How recipes and how-to (cooking) should be handled in Wikipedia has been a long term problem. It was discussed on many wiki pages, and on the English mailing lists, as well. Some consensus was reached, which has never been clarified in rules or a recommendation. This proposal aims to fix this, and to propose a set of guidelines, which follow. SweetLittleFluffyThing 01:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC).
The proposal is based on three considerations
Among articles containing a recipe and/or a how-to, we shall distinguish 3 types of articles.
Point 1b added/modified on the 23:39, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Encyclopedic might be any information which is bringing information useful aside from the pure cooking event.
Rule of thumb :
What are reasons for recipes in the encyclopedia?
All recipes will be transwikied to Wikibooks (made available over there). If an article stays on Wikipedia about that recipe, a direct link to Wikibooks recipe will always be provided.
For all articles containing encyclopedic content, or likely to do in the future, one example of a recipe or how-to will be acceptable. Decision to keep it or not, will be based on consensus.
Added on the 00:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No variations will be included (so, maximum one recipe). If many variations exist, we try to agree on which one to keep, and we remove the rests of it. If no reasonable agreement may be found, we move them all but are very careful to describe very well the core of the recipe.
If an article likely to contain encyclopedic information later in the future and left with no recipe is a stub, it will not be deleted on the ground it is a stub. At the minimum, a short description and a link to the wikibook recipe should be kept.
For all articles not containing encyclopedic content, and unlikely to do so in the future, the recipe will be transwikied. A father article will be found. The cleared article will be transformed into a redirect to the father article. The link to the recipe will be preferably left in the father article. Otherwise, it should be left in the equivalent father article on wikibooks. See Fried meatballs (link kept in meatball) for an example, or oyster (links kept on the wikibook article on oyster).
Discussion about whether articles are potentially encyclopedic or not (hence whether they should be kept; or content transwikified while the article is transformed in redirect) will be discussed on this page (not on vfd directly).
I fail to see how an article on "fried meatballs" is not encyclopedic. anthony (see warning) 01:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think that this proposal is a good beginning for dealing with this controversial pproblem. Referring to The Case of the Fried Meatballs only addresses one specific example; adopting the policy should not prejudice the way in which the example is solved. Eclecticology 11:13, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
Gentgeen says Someone (don't remember who, sorry) came up with a template for wikibooks cookbook links at Template:Cookbook, while I modified it for articles with different titles at Template:Cookbookpar.'
Gentgeen says The place to determine what dishes are encyclopedic and should have an article should be the WikiProject Food and Drink, or at VfD, not some obscure new page Ant made to hide the discussion. ;)
Gentgeen says I'm opposed to allowing example recipes into food articles. I was just jumping around and found what I think is a very bad article, Chili con carne.
Jamesday said
About point 6 :
Discussion about whether articles are potentially encyclopedic or not (hence whether they should be kept; or content transwikified while the article is transformed in redirect) will be discussed on this page (not on vfd directly).
There are basically two options. With such a proposal, the only thing left to take care of is to decide whether encyclopedic or not.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2004-October/025766.html
For the other issues you mention, I strongly agree we have a serious problem of communication between projects. I do not mean human communication (though...) but just plain communication between information.
Within the dictionary, there is no possibility to access automatically and directly to the same article in other languages.
Within wikipedia, there is no possibility to access automatically and directly to wiktionnary.
Within wikipedia, there is no possibility to access automatically and directly to wikibooks (this would be especially useful for wikibooks).
Etc...
We patch the best we can by putting links between our projects as external links, as if each project was independent, while it should NOT be independent, but an interconnected network. This is exactly what I was saying about food and recipees just 3 days ago, we are here not only to create information, but also to make it available. Information stored, but not available proeminently within a couple of click is LOST. It may exist somewhere, but it is of little use.
And I find extremely miserable that some of us try to put links to interconnect projects, while others are busy deleting those links (typical example are recipees being transwikies, then links to recipees being removed).
Consider the fugu.
Dictionnary : The fugu is as a poisonous fish, being used as food, especially in Japan, after poisonous organs have been removed. Add pronunciation.
Wikipedia : Full article about the fish itself. Background on fugu cultural weight. Who died eating it. Who are the most famous chef preparing fugu. Decoration. Delicacy etc...
Wikibooks : List of recipees and pictures
Etc...
Contrary to languages, I presume one article in one project should only lead to one article in another project.
So, on top of all international links, for each article of each project, there should be the possibility to link to an "sister article" in any other project we have.
A nice way to do this would be to add to the tool bar (well, say, the area where interlanguage links are displayed), a little icon of the sister project. The click on the icon would lead to the appropriate page.
Then the wikipedia article on Fugu would display
It would look good, using small graphics would help readers identify links for navigation from toolbar links, and it would be much useful.
It was several time discussed that international links had nothing to do in the body of the article. Nor should categories. Nor should probably interproject links.
What about then working on a new special area, which would provide a sort of form, with
External links is an excellent way to do this already. It's as much part of the article as any other external links, so including it in the article text with the other links seems best. Searches spanning many projects are somewhere on the to do list, so a search in an en project may include all en project results after those for the work where the search is happening. Details of implementation not decided, just accepted as a good idea. Jamesday 03:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The wolf {{Template:Species|lupus lupus|1}}
…" could be used to links an article to WikiSpecies and create a backlink of priority 1 into that language Wiki. etc.There's one issue here that should be clarified. Occasionally, the name of a recipe is also the name of some other more important concept unrelated to food (drink names are a very common example, such as screwball). I'd say probably the best thing to do is to have the disambiguation link (whether it's on a disambiguation page, a (disambiguation) page, or the main topic page) point to either the article on the food/drink or the "father" article, which then links to some Wikibooks source, but not to have the disambiguation link be directly to Wikibooks. Any dissent here? Derrick Coetzee 04:59, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
How recipes and how-to (cooking) should be handled in Wikipedia has been a long term problem. It was discussed on many wiki pages, and on the English mailing lists, as well. Some consensus was reached, which has never been clarified in rules or a recommendation. This proposal aims to fix this, and to propose a set of guidelines, which follow. SweetLittleFluffyThing 01:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC).
The proposal is based on three considerations
Among articles containing a recipe and/or a how-to, we shall distinguish 3 types of articles.
Point 1b added/modified on the 23:39, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Encyclopedic might be any information which is bringing information useful aside from the pure cooking event.
Rule of thumb :
What are reasons for recipes in the encyclopedia?
All recipes will be transwikied to Wikibooks (made available over there). If an article stays on Wikipedia about that recipe, a direct link to Wikibooks recipe will always be provided.
For all articles containing encyclopedic content, or likely to do in the future, one example of a recipe or how-to will be acceptable. Decision to keep it or not, will be based on consensus.
Added on the 00:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No variations will be included (so, maximum one recipe). If many variations exist, we try to agree on which one to keep, and we remove the rests of it. If no reasonable agreement may be found, we move them all but are very careful to describe very well the core of the recipe.
If an article likely to contain encyclopedic information later in the future and left with no recipe is a stub, it will not be deleted on the ground it is a stub. At the minimum, a short description and a link to the wikibook recipe should be kept.
For all articles not containing encyclopedic content, and unlikely to do so in the future, the recipe will be transwikied. A father article will be found. The cleared article will be transformed into a redirect to the father article. The link to the recipe will be preferably left in the father article. Otherwise, it should be left in the equivalent father article on wikibooks. See Fried meatballs (link kept in meatball) for an example, or oyster (links kept on the wikibook article on oyster).
Discussion about whether articles are potentially encyclopedic or not (hence whether they should be kept; or content transwikified while the article is transformed in redirect) will be discussed on this page (not on vfd directly).
I fail to see how an article on "fried meatballs" is not encyclopedic. anthony (see warning) 01:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think that this proposal is a good beginning for dealing with this controversial pproblem. Referring to The Case of the Fried Meatballs only addresses one specific example; adopting the policy should not prejudice the way in which the example is solved. Eclecticology 11:13, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
Gentgeen says Someone (don't remember who, sorry) came up with a template for wikibooks cookbook links at Template:Cookbook, while I modified it for articles with different titles at Template:Cookbookpar.'
Gentgeen says The place to determine what dishes are encyclopedic and should have an article should be the WikiProject Food and Drink, or at VfD, not some obscure new page Ant made to hide the discussion. ;)
Gentgeen says I'm opposed to allowing example recipes into food articles. I was just jumping around and found what I think is a very bad article, Chili con carne.
Jamesday said
About point 6 :
Discussion about whether articles are potentially encyclopedic or not (hence whether they should be kept; or content transwikified while the article is transformed in redirect) will be discussed on this page (not on vfd directly).
There are basically two options. With such a proposal, the only thing left to take care of is to decide whether encyclopedic or not.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2004-October/025766.html
For the other issues you mention, I strongly agree we have a serious problem of communication between projects. I do not mean human communication (though...) but just plain communication between information.
Within the dictionary, there is no possibility to access automatically and directly to the same article in other languages.
Within wikipedia, there is no possibility to access automatically and directly to wiktionnary.
Within wikipedia, there is no possibility to access automatically and directly to wikibooks (this would be especially useful for wikibooks).
Etc...
We patch the best we can by putting links between our projects as external links, as if each project was independent, while it should NOT be independent, but an interconnected network. This is exactly what I was saying about food and recipees just 3 days ago, we are here not only to create information, but also to make it available. Information stored, but not available proeminently within a couple of click is LOST. It may exist somewhere, but it is of little use.
And I find extremely miserable that some of us try to put links to interconnect projects, while others are busy deleting those links (typical example are recipees being transwikies, then links to recipees being removed).
Consider the fugu.
Dictionnary : The fugu is as a poisonous fish, being used as food, especially in Japan, after poisonous organs have been removed. Add pronunciation.
Wikipedia : Full article about the fish itself. Background on fugu cultural weight. Who died eating it. Who are the most famous chef preparing fugu. Decoration. Delicacy etc...
Wikibooks : List of recipees and pictures
Etc...
Contrary to languages, I presume one article in one project should only lead to one article in another project.
So, on top of all international links, for each article of each project, there should be the possibility to link to an "sister article" in any other project we have.
A nice way to do this would be to add to the tool bar (well, say, the area where interlanguage links are displayed), a little icon of the sister project. The click on the icon would lead to the appropriate page.
Then the wikipedia article on Fugu would display
It would look good, using small graphics would help readers identify links for navigation from toolbar links, and it would be much useful.
It was several time discussed that international links had nothing to do in the body of the article. Nor should categories. Nor should probably interproject links.
What about then working on a new special area, which would provide a sort of form, with
External links is an excellent way to do this already. It's as much part of the article as any other external links, so including it in the article text with the other links seems best. Searches spanning many projects are somewhere on the to do list, so a search in an en project may include all en project results after those for the work where the search is happening. Details of implementation not decided, just accepted as a good idea. Jamesday 03:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The wolf {{Template:Species|lupus lupus|1}}
…" could be used to links an article to WikiSpecies and create a backlink of priority 1 into that language Wiki. etc.There's one issue here that should be clarified. Occasionally, the name of a recipe is also the name of some other more important concept unrelated to food (drink names are a very common example, such as screwball). I'd say probably the best thing to do is to have the disambiguation link (whether it's on a disambiguation page, a (disambiguation) page, or the main topic page) point to either the article on the food/drink or the "father" article, which then links to some Wikibooks source, but not to have the disambiguation link be directly to Wikibooks. Any dissent here? Derrick Coetzee 04:59, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)