Jump to content

Talk:Outline of chocolate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Sweet! (literally) This became a reality! :) One suggestion, maybe we should have a "Chocolate in popular culture" so we can list stuff like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. -- penubag  (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ersatzchocolate

[edit]

i was gonna start cleaning up the article and am happy to do so but it is obviuously a work in progress so i left it alone

one thing i was thinking was about ersatzchocolate wartime false chocolate originally as the name suggests it was german but the term also passed into english. i think it was made largely from chicory presumably with some fat as a binder.

it is mentioned in orwells collected diaries i cant qiute think where but certainly during wartime. also this is trivia i suppose but in orwells nineteen eighty-four the chocoration (newspeak) is reduced from 30 grams to 20 grams a week and yet says it is increased i.e. an example of doublethink.

chocolate rations i have sourced from the home front handbook and have included in the article Rationing in the United Kingdom.

this is all rather trivial well not trivial but very much a sub article but just thought i'd note it while i think of it. btw i have kinda decided like ee cummings that capital letters are not necessary it is not ignorance. though of course in wikipedia proper i will follow style as best i can. SimonTrew (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be great if you could add that somewhere here. -- penubag  (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

I see no reason not to merge this to Chocolate. I wonder why everyone is reverting on the article page without discussing the proposed merger. What are the arguments for and against the proposed merger? Hipocrite (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One reason for the removal of the tag was probably that there where no argument for merge presented here. See belov. --Stefan talk 01:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support merge of anything relevant to Chocolate (which is the article that outlines Chocolate), and if anything is left perhaps, such as the assorted lists, a move to "List of chocolate topics" or some such, as this is clearly a list (not an outline, per any reasonable definition) apart from a few duplications of the chocolate article. Verbal chat 12:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a thematically and hierarchically sorted list. It does not make sense to merge such lists with the respective articles. First, they are lists which we generally do not want in articles, second, they are aiming at complete coverage of all existing pages related to a topic on Wikipedia (unlike articles), and third, they are part of a hierarchy of connected articles under the WikiProject Outline of knowledge. I agree that the introductions in general might need some listifying / deprosing and/or trimming, but these issues have to be discussed centrally on Wikipedia_talk:Outlines. Alternatively, you could always propose this article for deletion. Cacycle (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The outlines project has failed to gain consensus and is mostly a small talking shop for supporters. No community consensus for the project or outlines in general has been demonstrated. Verbal chat 13:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before, outlines have been around about as long as lists; since Wikipedia was first created. There is no consensus for Lists just like there is no consensus for Outlines. -- penubag  (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm going to have to reject the suggestion that issues like this need to be taken up on the talk page of an essay. It would be great if the supporters and opposers of a merge could detail a quick lists of the pros and cons of any proposal, as opposed to pros and cons of venues to talk about a proposal. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one can seem to understand exactly how useful outlines can be. If I could ask you to take less than 1 minute of your time to read one paragraph right here perhaps we won't be arguing on what outlines are for. -- penubag  (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna have to concur that regardless of the merits of the OOK project, this article is in a highly list-oriented format such that there's no reasonable way to merge it with Chocolate (unless one wants to toss the MoS out the window). Mine it for links to use at Chocolate, perhaps, but merging doesn't seem appropriate. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not merge: I'm trying to find the argument for a merge but is having troble finding it above. Hipocrite states, ' I see no reason not to ' OK, 'I see no reason to', so now what?? Verbal is arguing something like, ' failed to gain consensus ', still very few outlines have been deleted, so there seams to be consensus to keep the articles, right? It is very hard to argue for not merging with that kind of arguments for a merge, it is the person that tags for merge that should put up the argument, not the other way around. Hipocrite, Verbal and all other people (and there must be a lot since WP:WPOOK have failed to gain consensus) PLEASE state the reason for merge. --Stefan talk 01:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fallacious reasoning. There is no consensus to hve these articles, and certainly no consensus for the absolutely ridiculous and non intuitive naming. Verbal chat 08:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Explain how that argument was fallacious?
      • You argue for merge, with no reson, I explain that there is consensus for this article (see AFD), so it can not be merged. Please continue to argue from here. If you want to rename, argue for rename, not for merge! --Stefan talk 13:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we open a RFC, WP:PUMP discussion or something, to get a communit agreement on the two issues above, and stop this, I like outlines, I learned a lot working about the ones I have worked on, I found many articles that I did not know existed for the topics that I have been editing on for the last 5+ YEARS, I think they are useful to navigate wikipedia, categories are not and wikilinks are fine but is not the saem as outline pages!!! I do not want to spend lots of time making outlines IF the community really thinks this is a bad idea, but as I see it IMHO, there is a few individuals that is very vocal that disagrees, and I am not really sure why, I hear the article space and naming' issues, but this is not reasons to DELETE, only to have a nice discussion and come to an agreement. But I would like to hear the community and see if they really think this is a bad thing for wikipedia, then I will abide by that, but as it is now I do not think this is what the community thinks. Please stop the bickering, solve this on a wikipedia level and do not waste everyones time on local discussions like this. If we merge this outline I think we should merge all, I see no reason why choclate should be different from any other outline?? --Stefan talk 01:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the chocolate see also section is broadly similar to this article. As are the chocolate categories. The community has rejected this format every time it has come up. Verbal chat 08:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me some links that show that the community have rejected this format, since I'm not aware of this and I tried to show YOU links above that I think shows that the community have accepted this format. --Stefan talk 08:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 'see also' list not even an 1/8 of the links presented here, so it isn't nearly as affective. The categories are an alphabetical mess; you cannot find what you are looking for unless you know the name of the title. What do you have against outlines? -- penubag  (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have yet to see any consensus for naming lists "outline of". Unless this is provided then this article should be merged or renamed as a list following community policy and guidelines and general consensus. Verbal chat 13:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, finally, after 7 days almost an argument! <rant mode> Wonder was that Fallacious reasoning? Lets try: Since this list is named an outline, and all lists should be called list of, this outline must be renamed merged with to list of chocolate? Ahh well, it almost worked. </rant mode> So the argument is that this list should be merged with chocolate? But since lists are lists and chocolate is not it should not be merged?? true? So then you actually add the word, renamed! Ahh, so as I stated above if you want to rename argue for rename not a merge!!! So then I take the merge tag away now since you do not seam to want to merge??? Thanks --Stefan talk 13:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for rename, you claim that this is a list and therefore it should be renamed. I claim that since this is an outline and outlines have different naming and style than lists as per WP:LISTS today you argument does not hold. There is no consensus on how to name outlines, but there is consensus on having them (see AFDs above). So that does not give you the right to rename outlines to lists as you have done e.g. with outline of water and even gotten it move protected, please revoke the move protect and restore the original name. You need to seek consensus or keep the original name. Start a global discussion and get this over with as I asked for above. --Stefan talk 13:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not Merge - Either rename it or leave it as it is. Highfields (talk, contribs) 14:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is (don't merge) - Seems unreasonable to merge an outline into the chocolate article. EDIT: It seems someone came by and changed the merge to Index of chocolate-related articles. I oppose that move as well. That index should be renamed to List of chocolate brands or similar or the information presented there be copied here. -- penubag  (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Outlines#Outlines_in_Propaedia_and_in_general_print for the widespread and unambiguous use of the term outline. Cacycle (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be appropriate; an index is alphabetical, an outline (or list of _ topics or list of _-related articles) is hierarchical. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a list format and an outline format. A list doesn't have to be in outline form, and yet an outline formatted list can be titled a list. The problem is with the title, not the format. An outline can still be named a list. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but my point was that retitling this page as an Index wouldn't make sense. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I started blending things and have changed my initial comment accordingly. I have nothing against outlines as a format. It's the anal obsession with using the word "outline" in titles that is the problem. It doesn't always sound good. The project needs to distinguish between using outlines as a format and the practicalities of using titles that aren't simplistic and slavish uses of the word. That's about as foolish as the idea behind the doctrine of signatures, and in some ways is very similar. Common sense gets thrown out the window as an illogical and rigid thinking takes hold, preventing the consideration of other possibilities. None of this preclude using outlines as a format at all. There is one objection, and a potentially serious one, against outlines. They can easily be representations of editorial POV, whereas lists are often strictly alphabetical. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's very difficult to have these discussions in relation to individual articles without knowing what the community consensus is with regarding to "Outline of [topic]" articles. I suggest that this be placed on hold pending a proper centrally advertised RfC into Outlines and related articles. WJBscribe (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll and discussion concerning what outlines should be called

[edit]

A discussion is underway that may affect the name of this article.

See: Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Should articles named "Outline of x" be renamed to "List of x topics"?

The Transhumanist 04:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprovable Assertion in See Also

[edit]

In the See Also section the following assertion

Brussels (city known for the best chocolate bonbon)

is unprovable. It also lacks any external citations or references so it can only refer to personal opinion.

Claygordon (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question has now been removed. Highfields (talk, contribs) 19:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

There is a reftag on this page. Yet there seem to be no assertations requiring references. Can it be removed? - Highfields (talk, contribs) 12:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count 12. Remember, wikipedia is not a WP:RS. Verbal chat 12:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then either go to the pages, find the external sources and copy them here. Or let me know where they are and I'll remove them - Highfields (talk, contribs) 13:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References should not go in section titles. They should go in the text under the section titles. Verbal chat 06:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was that directed at me? Because Penubag put them there - Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. It was a general comment and not intended as criticism. I'd have moved them myself but not sure where they should rightly go. Verbal chat 15:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, the references I just added resolves this concern. -- penubag  (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines

[edit]

"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Outline of chocolate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outline_of_chocolate&oldid=1199816967"