Wikipedia talk:Recipes proposal

I moved this from List of recipes/Proposal since that was in the article namespace. Angela . 03:26, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

I found the links ![edit]

Most agree they could be moved (see Jimbo, Elian and Ec opinion though), but most also consider content should be moved (not deleted) and links should be preserved.

Wikipedia is not the mailing list. February is not October. In the last few months, no "article" that is just a recipe has survived VfD, but many have become actual articles and been kept. As I've said before, an article that is just a recipe doesn't give encyclopedic information about a dish, like it's history, useage, significance, how widespread it is, etc. It would be like if our article on OpenOffice.org was just the source code of the application printed out as text. It's just a set of instructions with no context, and I think that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.

Come on Gentgeen, you know very well that this is also a lot in Talk:List of recipes/Delete as well. Also, if consensus made 6 months before are not valid any more just from the decision of those working on the topic 6 months later, then I fear that most rules followed in Wikipedia should just disappear :-)

We also already had this discussion you and I, and you know well that we agreed that just recipee could be moved, while those articles with a bit of encyclopedic content, cultural background, fame etc... could stay here, and this is exactly why you agree that meatball should stay I think. So, you and I have no disagreement.

Again, these discussions show that there is no evidence it is commonly agreed that everything should just disappear as some editors seem to consider here. SweetLittleFluffyThing 02:27, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There was no consensus 6 months ago. I stopped talking because every time I tried to reach a compromise with you, you changed what you wanted. I'll only bang my head against the same wall so many times before I decide it's not worth it. Gentgeen 03:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

transwiki[edit]

There is something bugging me in the transwiki system.

Here is an example.

A user create a recipee
Later, someone list it on vfd, some suggest it be transwikied to wikibooks, while other try to keep it in the encyclopedia. Nevertheless, the article is transwikies, but a stub kept, WITH a link to wikibooks
Later, someone finds the stub and list it on vfd (or even suggests it for speedy deletion). In spite of those supporting keeping recipee, the stub is deleted. The link to the recipee subsequently disappear. Those deleting it do not particularly attempt to keep the link active somewhere, so, it is likely that all traces of the initial recipee is deleted.
This is called a forced consensus but well :-)

Now... here is what is bugging me. In deleting not only the content, but also the link to the wikibooks article and references to it, I consider there is a big loss of information. Other answer me it is not a loss at all since the information is kept... well stored somewhere else.

Except... that... wikipedia is FAR MORE known than wikibooks. Actually, I still am waiting to see big articles on wikibooks. I still wait to see google search leading me to wikibooks. I suspect that for many people, Wikipedia could become the everyday encyclopedia, and at least for some of us, the everyday encyclopedia should contain recipees. When the recipees are deleted entirely, the reader coming to Wikipedia and typing a recipee name... will get ... nothing. Not the recipee, nor the link to a recipee. He will not even get a more generalist article where the link to wikibooks could be. He will get just nothing at all.

Information *may* exist somewhere, but it is "hidden". The link has been broken. The network does not exist.

And I think the network should exist. Our goal is to GIVE access to information to readers. Not only to CREATE information. We must create the information, organise it, categorize it, link it, and make it accessible. Each time we delete information links from one project to another, we may not hurt the content itself, but we reduce the networkability (does that word exist ? If not, here it is) : we limit access to information. We hid it.

When information exists, but can not be found easily by readers, then we have failed. Imho. SweetLittleFluffyThing 23:59, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. There are many types of information in the world, but only a limited subset is of interest to an encyclopedia. We are not, for example, an atlas, nor a guide to the interesting parts of your local park. We are not the floor plans to your building, nor a video game strategy guide. We're also not your homepage. There is appropriate scope to Wikipedia, and some things fall outside it. It doesn't matter that wikipedia is far better known than wikibooks -- it has a scope, and it's a well put-together project. Wikibooks is too. Keep things where they belong. People can use google for nonencyclopedic content -- it's not as if anyone is going to lose out on information entirely just because wikipedia doesn't have it. --Improv 18:37, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My main problem with your answer, which I respect, is that you appear to have decided what was encyclopedic and what was not encyclopedic for everyone. Sorry, but many of us consider that some recipees belong here, that how-to belong here, that atlas information belongs here etc... If I may dare say, I think that comparing this to "my homepage" or the "floor plans of my building" is bordering rudeness, if not plain rudeness, and I would appreciate that you approach other opinions than yours with a little bit more of consideration.

- Have you not done the same? It's unavoidable, and unless you assume that "keep" is a default of some kind, there's no value-neutral way to avoid that. I may, for example, turn your paragraph around entirely.

My main problem with your answer, which I respect, is that you appear to have decided what was
encyclopedic and what was not encyclopedic for everyone. Sorry, but many of us consider that recipies don't 
belong here, etc. You're not giving our idea proper consideration. ...

Previous encyclopedia, such as the one by Diderot and D'Alembert, had understood what was important to be reported, and food as well as food preparation was certainly included in it. Because people just do not live only from internet, Bush and last football results. They first of all need a couple of basic things, such as decent, nutritious food, suitable water and clean and fresh air. If you consider that these are not appropriate topics for an encyclopedia, then neither should football results be. Nor yu-gi-ho games. Nor mangas. Nor many of the thousands of computer articles.

Guess what, I agree! Football results should not be on here, nor should most of the fancruft you mention. It is possible for computer articles to be encyclopedic, but we also have a lot of nonencyclopedic information on those topics too. I hope to see them removed as well.

The scope of this project is to gather all human knowledge, AND it is to provide people with this information.

I *strongly* disagree. All human knowledge actually includes information that you suggested I was rude for comparing your proposal to. Specifically, when I walk down the street in my neighborhood, I eventually learn where the stop signs are, what colour my neighbor's car is, and all that. I learn what restaurants are good here, I find out what clothes look good on me, what foods my pet likes to eat, and similar. All these are human knowledge, part of the wonder of life. At the very same time, they're all nonencyclopedic. That's perfectly ok -- Wikipedia doesn't need that human knowledge. We don't need to share it. If I decide to share such information, I have a webpage outside of Wikipedia where I can keep it and people can google for it if they like. It's no shame if they don't happen to find it either. Wikipedia has a scope, and some things don't fit. Again, specifically for recipies, I would support making a seperate mediawiki site, perhaps Wicipies/Wikipies, where recipies could be shared, so long as the main namespace doesn't need links to every single article there. I just don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. On a more personal note, please stop pretending I'm on a witchunt against you. We can discuss this in a more mature way than what you've been doing. --Improv 21:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is not to decide for readers what is important and what is not. Each time you delete a recipee, even a redirect, or a link to another wikimedia project, and thus remove access to information, you take the decision for other people of what is important and what is not important. You decide for people what they should read, and what they should not read. This is your pov, do not impose it on readers. Leave people decide what is important for them, themselves. To insure this, you must not delete information, nor hide in other places, nor delete links that allow access to that information. You must leave people the opportunity to decide by themselves. Not feed them what you want to be fed with. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Incidently, this is what this user supports :

I think food may have a value, but they're not at all encyclopedic, and so I support deletion of all articles on food, especially recipies. --Improv 08:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I personally think deleting all food articles is vandalism. SweetLittleFluffyThing

I started a policy discussion here Wikipedia:Recipes proposal. Please give your opinion. Thanks. SweetLittleFluffyThing