Talk:List of shrimp dishes

Article title

This article was originally written as an article about shrimp as a food, and was titled "Shrimp (food)" to disambiguate it from the main shrimp article. Neelix (talk · contribs) has twice changed the name of the article. The first time to "Shrimp cuisine". A cuisine refers to the national dishes of a country. The article does include some cuisine, but it covers a lot of other things about shrimp as a food. Neelix then renamed the article "Shrimp meat" and is adamant that that is what the article is about. At first, as with other people [1], I wasn't sure what place shrimp meat has in the industry. It seems the term is used sometimes in the shrimp processing industry. I will be rewriting the article so it is about shrimp meat, and not about shrimp as a food. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article by defining shrimp meat, finding an image of shrimp meat (the only one on commons), and removing items that are not specifically to do with shrimp meat. I will reinstate the removed items in an article about shrimp as food when Neelix is happy about what the article is to be called. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion here has concluded with more than a week passing with no opposition to moving this article to "Shrimp in cuisine". "Shrimp meat" and "Shrimp as food" have both been decisively determined to be inappropriate titles for this article. "Shrimp (food)" is also against Wikipedia's guidelines, as explained in the linked discussion. Neelix (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That discussion is most certainly not finished. I merely needed a break to recover from your extraordinarily obdurate behaviour. Talking endlessly to a brick wall is exhausting. To say that "Shrimp as food" has been "decisively determined" to be inappropriate title is not true. I have removed material which is not about cuisine from the article you inappropriately restored. Why don't you mess up articles that you write, instead of messing up article other people have done the work on. This is certainly not the article I set out to write. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop these personal attacks. Surely, we can focus on content and not each other. I have reverted the removal of valid content from this article. If you wish to contest the validity of this information or the current title of this article ("Shrimp in cuisine") please notify me and start a new discussion on this talk page. Neelix (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• The rest of this thread belongs more appropriately on the Seafood talk page and has been transferred there. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Move

This article has been split into a list of shrimp based dishes and an article covering the culinary uses of shrimp found at Shrimp (food). --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated the original article. There was never any consensus for this move. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

---

I moved this thread to the bottom of the page, where it belongs. I also copied the comment immediately below, which also belong here, but was made elsewhere by Jerem43

---

This article was split into two articles several weeks or months ago as part of a discussion over naming formats of articles. It was recently undone by the primary author of this article. I have restored the two articles as this is a standard practice of keeping lists of dishes as their own separate article in order to keep the primary article more compact.

Examples:

• Rice and List of rice dishes
• Bacon and List of bacon dishes
• Potato and List of potato dishes
• Gyeongsang and List of Gyeongsang dishes

Comments are welcome. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• What "standard practices". Or are you just representing personal preferences as something more than personal preferences? There are already dozens of established articles on Template:Seafood which do not follow the format you are attempting to impose. If your format were to be followed, most articles would have to be split and the template would double in size. Seafood articles would then have a relatively disorganised feel and it would become more difficult for a reader to locate what they want.

Further, there is no parallel with the examples you give. It is not correct to compare rice and list of rice dishes or potato and list of potato dishes. That would be like comparing shrimp to list of shrimp dishes. In seafood articles another article sits in between—in this case shrimp (food). This is because seafood is different from other foods; it is often harvested far out to sea and is highly perishable, difficult to store, transport and market; there are a lot of background issues. That is not the case with foods like rice or potatoes. To jump directly from shrimp to list of shrimp dishes is too big a jump, it needs the transition. That applies generally to seafood article and not so much to non seafood articles. And once you have the transition article, such as shrimp (food), it is not necessary to split off the shrimp dishes. Most of the seafood articles do not have long list of dishes. And even in the case of shrimp, where the list is quite long, the article is still relatively short, way short of the 50 KB of readable prose which might indicate a case for splitting. Seafood articles are somewhat in a category of their own, and require an approach appropriate to seafoods, not trying to force a format that might work for non seafoods. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

They haven't been split off yet. They eventually will be as the articles grow as that is the logical place to split them. See WP:Article size and Category:List-Class Food and drink articles. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your claims that seafood articles are somehow different than other food articles and associated lists employs some twisted logic. Food is food, food dishes are food dishes. Lets use another highly perishable protein as an example: We have articles on egg (biology), egg (food) and the list of egg dishes, so how are shrimp, shrimp (food) and list of shrimp dishes any different? Any protein is highly perishable by their nature, and the way it is gathered has no impact on how an article is formatted. Saying that seafood is some how different from any other foodstuff is a spurious claim.

This not a personal preference, it is standard practice that those in the WP:Food WikiProject have been employing for years; you are the one who is trying to enforce your personal preference over community derived practices with some claims that have no basis in reality. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your assessments that I employ "twisted logic" and "claims that have no basis in reality". I notice you have written mainly about fast food items from Burger King, Wendy's and McDonald's, and seem to have little interest in other aspects of food or food production. If you had, you would have a very different perspective. Seafood articles, for example, are written from the perspective of articles like fish processing. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

My approximately 50,000 are much broader than the three you have mentioned. I watch close to 5,000 pages, most are not the three you mentioned. And since I have been in the foodservice business for 30 years, I know a good amount about food, where it comes from, how it is harvested and prepared. Food articles are written from the perspective of food. There are about 24,000 food and beverage articles on WP - I know because I oversaw the project to tag them all. Sea food is a subset of food. Fish farming is a form of livestock farming, fishing is a form of hunting, fish processing is a form food processing akin to a slaughterhouse. The FDA and the USDA are in charge of all of these things in the United States because they're food.

Just because it is a food that comes from the sea, does not mean it belongs to some form of special category that excludes them from the existing formats that are in extensive use under the auspices of WP:Food. You want to prove me wrong, then tell me in concrete forms how your claims are true. Show me that there is some reason why these items do not have to follow a consensus derived format that is in use all over WP. I created an article that was a fork of one you created, and you went overboard in undoing the list article without providing a single policy based reason why it cannot or should not exist. Please tell me how is this not just a simple case of WP:Own? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a simple case of ownership. You say, rather grandly, that the articles come under "the auspices of WP:Food". Well that may well be, but equally they belong to the fisheries project. You also seem to identify yourself with WP:Food. As you say on your talk page, you "have pretty much taken over maintaining the various Food and Drink project and portal pages", though it looks like you have appointed yourself. Mechanically tagging thousands of articles is a simple job for a bot, and I don't see why that means your views should carry extra weight. Now you have found an area to do with seafood that you didn't know existed, and you have barged in here with much arm waving, hurling accusations in all directions, and "reorganising" articles without any discussion or thought as to whether it is appropriate. You seem in a great rush to take over these articles along with the other articles you have already "taken over". Well that's fine. I don't mind in the slightest if you want to proclaim on your talk page that you are responsible for these articles. I don't think I own the articles myself, but since I wrote most of this stuff and did the hard work, I don't want to see that go down the drain just to satisfy your own needs to own the articles. So can we come to some compromise? You can claim you have "taken over" the seafood articles so long as you don't try and prove your ownership by messing them up. It's impressive that you have worked for a long time in the fast food service (Burger King?). I suppose such a background gives you authority and expertise in some areas but, with all due respect, I don't see how that qualifies you to ride roughshod over articles on the fishing industry and seafood, particularly since you appear to have contributed nothing whatsoever to these articles. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of shrimp dishes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nricp.go.kr/kr/data/mkr/original/download.jsp?no=1201&mode=file1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of shrimp dishes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110817230524/http://hk.lady.nextmedia.com/articles/art_main.cfm?sec_id=3840163&subsec_id=6748448&art_id=11221716&showdate=20080612&av=NO to http://hk.lady.nextmedia.com/articles/art_main.cfm?sec_id=3840163&subsec_id=6748448&art_id=11221716&showdate=20080612&av=NO

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of shrimp dishes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101017022206/http://www.generaltsoschicken.net/RecipeSteps.html to http://www.generaltsoschicken.net/RecipeSteps.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)