Jump to content

Talk:Cocido

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

removed

[edit]

I removed the following content from this article, in accordance with the rules at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook or textbook. Recipes are unsuitable for Wikipedia; however, I've left it here in case anyone is interested. Terraxos (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yield: 6 Servings

2 poundsBeef shin
½ poundsBacon
1Chicken
2 quartBoiling water
2 poundsPotatoes; pared
1 poundsCarrots; scraped
1 poundsTurnips; pared
1 largeCabbage; quartered
1 Smoked sausage; sliced
2 cupRice

Add meat and bacon to water. Cover. Simmer for two hours. Add vegetables. Simmer for 15 minutes. Add sausage. Simmer until vegetables are tender. Remove 4 1/2 cups of broth from the stew. Bring to a boil. Add rice. Cover. Simmer for 30 minutes. Drain stew; pour broth into soup bowls. Place meat on Platter. Surround with vegetables. Serve with rice. 6 servings. Suggested menu: Portuguese stew, escarole salad, garlic bread, peach cobbler, coffee or tea.

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 March 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Content from Draft:Cozido to be merged into this article as appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cozido → Cozido à portuguesa – The Portuguese article is named "Cozido à portuguesa". It is also the name used in the National dish article. Epulum (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Many food names are not translated into English unless the translated name is more popular than the native name. (See Arroz con gandules, Kolokythopita, Lörtsy, Motsunabe, Tuwo shinkafa and numerous others.) Here are some English books/articles/interviews where the portuguese food name "cozido à portuguesa" apppears: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. --Epulum (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed this ping. It only notifies if also signed. I stand by my original oppose. I don't know why n-grams isn't picking those up, but it is picking up cozido, and regular Google confirms this as the most common English-language usage for me. Sure, some food names aren't translated into English, but in English it appears that plain cozido is the norm, so WP:USEENGLISH still applies since this is the common name used. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni, Laurdecl, and Andrewa: When the word cozido is used in English sources, does it refer to cozido à portuguesa or or cozido dishes in general (including different kinds of cozidos)? If it's the latter case, the cozido article should at least be unlinked from the Portuguese cozido à portuguesa article. Because cozido à portuguesa is a type of cozido, and cozido and cozido à portuguesa are two different things with the inclusion relation. --Epulum (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, are you saying that "cozido" is a different thing to "cozido à portuguesa"? If so, then I think we'll have to withdraw our opposes... Laurdecl talk 03:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurdecl: Cozido is a bigger concept. See the articles on similar Spanish concepts: cocido and cocido madrileño. (FYI: the latter is called cozido madrileno in Portuguese.) And of course, there are many cozido dishes other than cozido à portuguesa, although the Portuguese Wikipedia seems to have only cozido à portuguesa and cozido de grão yet, if we don't count the Spanish cozido madrileno. --Epulum (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni, Laurdecl, and Andrewa: This article not only is linked to the Portuguese article cozido à portuguesa, but also is describing the dish called cozido à portuguesa, which is distinct from other cozido dishes. --Epulum (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did a manual search of Google books since n-grams seems to have dropped the ball on this one. I did find some evidence of the full name in English-language sources, but just from a manual check, it doesn't seem to be predominant in the English language, and the short form that you are arguing against does seem to exclusively refer to this dish. The search does not return positive results when searching for English-language material outside of books using the full name. If the other dishes have articles, use their full name, since they do not seem to have an English language norm. You could even create Cozido (disambiguation) and have a hat note on this article pointing to it. But I am convinced by the sources that in English, this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term, and as this is the English-language Wikipedia, I'm satisfied with that. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: Can you share the texts based on which you concluded "the short form does seem to exclusively refer to this dish"? --Epulum (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He has responded in #Discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

A few points from the above.

Firstly, does the short form... exclusively refer to this dish in English as suggested?

See this Google image search for evidence that it often does. Makes my mouth water actually! But it's a lot harder to find evidence as to whether or not it does exclusively or even usually. Interested in any suggestions as to how we might do this.

But secondly, does it matter? According to Collins Cozido is simply Portuguese for stew [1] (other authorities add stewed, baked and boiled, but this is a noun and seems to be the meaning). We could have guessed that perhaps, and that Cozido à portuguesa is just Portuguese stew. Now, suppose we did find another meaning for Cozido in English. This would likely be another stew from Portugal, but not as well known obviously as this one. Would we create another article for it here? Doubtful. We would much more likely expand the article to include information on both such stews.

So in any case, the information in this article is best to stay at the base name Cozida rather than being moved to a naturally disambiguated title such as the one suggested. Andrewa (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: As a matter of fact, it does matter. Because the phrases like à portuguesa in food names aren't that simple. Cozido à portuguesa means a bit more than just "Portuguese-style stew". Many Portuguese-style stews are not called cozido à portuguesa. A similar example is galinha à portuguesa, which can be directly translated into "Portuguese-style chicken". The whole phrase refers to a specific dish, not any type of chicken dish made Portuguese-style. In fact, it is a dish from Macau. Just like spaghetti alla Bolognese, which can be directly translated into "Bolognesi-style spaghetti". The dish didn't even originate in Bologna. And many "authentic" Bolognesi-style spaghetti dishes are not called spaghetti alla Bolognese. Arroz a la cubana, carciofi alla Romana, the list goes on. These food names are fixed expressions, like idioms, where the principle of compositionality doesn't apply as in other phrases. --Epulum (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that these food names are fixed expressions, like idioms, where the principle of compositionality doesn't apply as in other phrases. But Corzido in English does mean this particular type of stew, so there's no parallel to these examples, so both they and the principle they illustrate are irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: Again, can you share the texts based on which you concluded "cozido in English does mean this particular type of stew"? TonyBallioni hasn't answered yet. Because in this book, the word cozido is used in parallel with pot-au-feu and cocido, which are French and Spanish stew categories. This book says cozido à portuguesa is a type of cozido. This book (on Brazilian cuisine) says cozido is a stew usually made with many vegetables (potatoes, sweet potatoes, carrots, and manioc)! This article defines cozido as "numerous stews of Latin America". This book says cozido is a stew with multitude of ingredients, including bananas. All of those are written in English. --Epulum (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Progress! Yes, that is new information to me. But they do show that cozido can mean this type of stew, among others.
But far more important, what these quotes show is that the scope of the article should be broadened, with a section on the portuguese cozido. They provide no case for moving it, unless we have coverage of these other stews elsewhere (doubtful), or have another name under which we wish to immediately create a new article to cover them (more doubtful), or regard them or as not notable enough for inclusion even in this broad article (more doubtful still).
This broadening is a far greater improvement to Wikipedia than moving the article would have been.
Having done this we can then look at the wisdom of splitting out a separate article on the Portuguese version. Andrewa (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't responded. Busy in this part of the world with basketball madness, and phones do not make for good Google Books viewers! My thoughts are with Andrewa: expand the article and split off in the future if necessary. And now to the liquor store... :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa and TonyBallioni: Or we can give this article (whose coverage is cozido à portuguesa, and is currently linked to other articles that also cover cozido à portuguesa) its name, and create a new article that covers the wider concept cozido and link that article to other articles that also cover cozido, which is what I was going to do, and I still think is a more efficient way. --Epulum (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then Draft:Cozido or User:Epulum/Cozido is the place to start, rather than with the RM. Start the corresponding talk page Draft talk:Cozido or User talk:Epulum/Cozido at the same time. Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would not feel comfortable doing a move here until seeing a well sourced article to replace it. While you have demonstrated that other dishes fall into this type, it still appears to me that this is the primary English-language topic and we don't need a natural didambiguation yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. But once that exists, either in user or draft space (see wp:draft, either would do in this case) there is no problem at all. A good outcome. Andrewa (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa and TonyBallioni: Now Draft:Cozido does exist. I have provided some sources that support my arguments when I commented on this talk page, but I still haven't been provided with any text on which the opposition arguments are based. To be honest, I'm tired now and this has consumed enough of my free time. Moving this article or not, I'm out. --Epulum (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great draft. It would be an excellent start if it weren't for the fact that we already have an article with a significant history at Cozido.
But as we do, we need to look at whether there's enough material to justify two articles. My opinion is no, we don't. Interested in others. Andrewa (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa and Epulum:My suggestion is to merge some of the draft content into this article. I don't see the need for two articles at this time. There is not enough content in both to justify separate articles. If the article grows to a length where they would be warranted, a discussion can be held at that time as to if a split is required. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this suggestion obviously. This article should then have a section on Cozido à portuguesa to which that name should redirect. In that is the only contributor to the draft at this point is Epulum, the neatest thing would be for them to add their text to the article, thus sparing us the need to preserve the edit history of the draft. (Alternatively we could just put a note to this effect on the talk page and in the edit summary. The talk page note is essential, and should be undated to discourage auto-archiving. But it's a lot neater if they just do it. Happy to help.) Andrewa (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the articles or not, I wouldn't like to participate in that discussion. But if the articles are merged under the name cozido, it should of course be disconnected from the cozido à portuguesa articles and connected to cozido articles in Wikidata and other language Wikipedias. --Epulum (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close discussion

[edit]
Challenged close of the RM

The result of the move request was: This article moved to Cozido à portuguesa per nom, and Draft:Cozido moved to Cozido. I think there is clear consensus about that now. This is a page-mover closure, so edit histories of both pages shall be preserved; I will also update Wikidata interwiki links. Merge discussion can take place afterwards. No such user (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • TonyBallioni: As I said in the closing statement, merging is left to consensus of editors and does not require technical tools of a page mover or admin. Now that both articles are in the mainspace, anyone may perform a merger and attribution steps according to the procedure outlined in WP:MERGETEXT. I'm not sure I see a clear consensus for merge (I'm not positive if Andrewa supported merging or splitting, and Epulum expressed reservations), but whatever the case, I think the RM (opened a month ago) needed closing in a way forward. No such user (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No such user I agree that it needed a close, but I'm pretty sure the close was against consensus here. Andrewa and I both opposed the move and moving the draft into mainspace. Would you consider reversing your close and letting the merge discussion take place from the draft? TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And what's the difference? What we have now is a tenable situation, where articles on both (granted, related) topics sit on appropriately named pages in the mainspace, that may or may not be merged later (and anyone may perform a merge without admin help). Keeping the draft in the draftspace would require it to sit there eternally, for attribution reasons, even after the merge. No such user (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that the clear consensus here was for the article that was moved to stay as the primary article. Then as Andrewa suggested for Epulum to merge the content themselves into the article, which would make for very simple attribution. The move of the draft and the subsequent move of what was going to be the primary topic article to a natural disambiguation simply confuses the situation further. Keeping it in draft would also be easy because you would just have a redirect to the article, and make a note for attribution in the edit summary. Redirects from drafts to mainspace are normal, and don't hurt anything. There was clearly no consensus for the move made here, and I think a rough consensus against it. I can take it to a move review, but I think reversing it would be much easier and also in line with policy and the discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the move should be reversed, and that MR would be appropriate if needed.
    It is certainly possible to move forward from this, but the move was quite simply out of process and sets an appalling precedent. If No such user wished to support the action they have taken, they should have joined the discussion, not overruled the consensus. Andrewa (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion on "the consensus here" The articles are now at the status what I suggested they should be from the beginning, but I don't think it was the consensus here. I don't think the merger from the draft was the consensus either, though. It was the opinion of two people, and I doubt the agreement of two people qualifies as "the consensus here". Moving the text myself was not an option for me, and I was going to disconnect the article from cozido à portuguesa articles and connect it to cozido articles in Wikidata and other language Wikipedias, if more than two people reach an agreement and someone other than me merges the text. If the third person, or the third and fourth people don't think the merger should be done and no one mgerges the text, that's even better. --Epulum (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a discussion on merging could have taken place, and sorry if my comment implied there was a consensus to merge. I viewed it as an option but not a necessity, and wanted to hear your thoughts. Regardless, three of the four total participants in this RM are of the opinion that the close was against consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly tried to untangle the situation here, but as it was challenged, I'm reverting the close and think I will bail out of here. I really don't see how you are going to proceed further, but I'm probably missing something. No such user (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think that's a good call. I'm very sorry that you found this a negative experience. Collaboration can be like that. Andrewa (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merged

[edit]

I've had a go at merging the content from Draft:Cozido and broadening the scope of this article — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you. The only problem now is that we may need to preserve the edit history of Draft:Cozido, otherwise we may fall foul of copying within Wikipedia and even wp:5P3.
Did you copy any of the text from the draft? If not there probably is no problem. Andrewa (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa, it was G7ed, so I'm assuming you should be able to undelete it and then blank and redirect to here. It would be a sure solution and I don't think would violate INVOLVED. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, perhaps invoking wp:snow if needed... but MSGJ's solution has bypassed this need very elegantly, see below. My fears turn out to be groundless. Andrewa (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I attributed the copied content in my edit summary so I think we are fine — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Yes, I had not noticed that. You linked to the contributor's user page, not the source page, which is a possibility not mentioned in the guidelines AFAIK and which covers this unusual situation very well IMO. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that Cozido be merged into Cocido. The contents in the Cozido and Cocido can be easily explained together (See that cocido madrileño is called cozido madrileno in Portuguese, and cozido à portuguesa is called cocido a la portuguesa in Spanish.) and the two articles are of reasonable sizes that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.

Things to consider

  • Talk:Cocido is currently redirecting to this page, Talk:Cozido. (It has been since December 2008.‎)
  • No overlap besides the English Wikipedia (ease of Wikidata merger)
    • Cozido article currently exists in Portuguese, Swedish, and Japanese Wikipedias.
      • The Japanese article explains cocido and cozido together in the cozido article.
    • Cocido article currently exists in Spanish, Catalan, German, Esperanto, Basque, Galician, Armenian, Italian, Hungarian, Russian, and Tagalog Wikipedias.

--Epulum (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there are also articles at
each describing a regional variant. (And that you have recently edited all three.) Andrewa (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: Yes, I've added cozido à portuguesa in their "See also" sections. Is the fact that I did important (or worth mentioning)? --Epulum (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of these three is I think certainly relevant to this merger proposal. If those three were then in turn merged, and we now have a precedent for doing that, the article might then be a bit too long.
So I think you should explain your thoughts on that here. See also User talk:Epulum#Cocido merge. Andrewa (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: Why would those three articles be in turn merged? I agree that mentioning the four narrower-scope articles (Cocido madrileño, cocido lebaniego, cocido montañés, and cozido à portuguesa) is a good idea. I've also replied at User talk:Epulum#Cocido merge. --Epulum (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a natural question in view of the result at #Requested move 4 March 2017 above. I'm not at this stage convinced either way, but I do think we need to consider the whole structure of the articles on these closely related topics, rather than deciding any more in isolation. It would have been best to do this before the actions above, but let us not repeat that mistake. Andrewa (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eventual article structure

[edit]

I think, as suggested above, that we need to look at these articles as a big picture.

We have two BCIs, at cozido and cocido, obviously related. One of them is recently merged with an article on a specific dish. The other contains links to three articles on specific dishes.

What's the ideal article structure here for these topics?

What other articles if any are affected?

What other material is relevant... that is, can any of the existing articles be expected to grow significantly?

What else should be considered before we take further action? Andrewa (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A correction. This article (cozido) was recently merged with Draft:Cozido, a draft on cozido (not a specific dish, but a category of many dishes). This article named "cozido" was originally about a specific dish, cozido à portuguesa, but now most of its content was replaced with the content from Draft:Cozido. This article was also connected to d:Q3312252, but now it is connected to d:Q29110224. Currently there are two big category articles (cozido and cocido) and four narrower-scope articles (Cocido madrileño, cocido lebaniego, cocido montañés, and cozido à portuguesa). In my opinion, the four articles are better explained together under the single category article made by merging cozido and cocido. --Epulum (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correction noted! I had not noticed that you had reinstated the removed content, without further discussion and in defiance of the move close.
I'm of two minds on this. The bottom line is the eventual structure, and the one you suggest has much to recommend it. Andrewa (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another correction: Only a few sentences there are from the removed content. The discussion was about whether moving the article cozido to cozido à portuguesa. The decision was "no move", so the move didn't happen. Creating a "new" article on cozido à portuguesa after the move close is not against it. --Epulum (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The closer assessed consensus as Content from Draft:Cozido to be merged into this article as appropriate, and that merge subsequently occurred. This decision left Cozido à portuguesa as a redirect to the merged article. If you do not agree with that decision (and I agree there is now reason to revisit it), please discuss it rather than ignoring it.
Now raised on your user talk page. Andrewa (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cozido à portuguesa didn't even exist before someone moved Cozido to it by mistake. You can't decide to leave something as a redirect when it is not a redirect. Merged articles are Cozido and Draft:Cozido. You can always start a new WP:CFORK discussion if you think Cozido à portuguesa should be merged into Cozido. --Epulum (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. See your talk page. Andrewa (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cocido&oldid=1245224811"