Jump to content

Talk:List of regional dishes of the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Lists need reference? Proof of notability

GAH! WHY CAN"T I TURN MY CAPSLOCK OFF? SORRY< NOT TRYING TO SHOUT> DOES A LIST NEED REFERENCES AND EVIDENCE OF NOTABILITY IF EVERYTHING IN IT HAS ITS OWN PAGE? valereee (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Compassionate727...actually, I don't think it does. I'm looking at various policies, and it looks like a list, as long as it links only to items that have their own articles, can assume notability and sourcing. valereee (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Well then, I guess I would be wrong. Nevertheless, sourcing isn't a bad idea. List of proxy wars is a list that assumed sourcing, and as I have discovered, was (and still is in areas I haven't gotten to yet) incredibly inaccurate. Compassionate727 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see how that one would need some sourcing! For lists, sourcing is generally required if there's any possible controversy over whether an item belongs on the list. And it would likely be necessary if there's any controversy over whether a list should even exist. valereee (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense. I would also argue that there would be controversy as to whether some of these foods are actually regional. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Compassionate727, I'm open to discussion! Which ones do you think aren't appropriate for a list of regional dishes? As I was putting the list together, I was looking for dishes that were called out in their articles as being representative of particular areas. valereee (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying there are any entries that aren't. This just seems like something that could possibly cause a debate, like how Americans think pizza came from Italy, and yet it wasn't. Compassionate727 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
There is definitely room to create clearer inclusion criteria, per WP:LSC. Hopefully we can have a productive discussion on that, and an RfC once we have a proposal. Ibadibam (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

One things stands out as I work on this list...

...some articles have a first line of the lead paragraph that summarizes the dish beautifully. Those that don't have such a first line summary tend not to have ANY good one-line summary that I can steal copy with appropriate attribution. valereee (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Finger steaks

I don't see finger steaks on the list as a southern Idaho dish, can someone please add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.46.38 (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done, here. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Photos

Someone stop me if I'm adding these photos incorrectly and causing someone else extra work. valereee (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Valereee and Northamerica1000: and other editors: If you add a third parameter to the image markup, that will usually be displayed, depending on your browser, as a "tool tip" when you mouse over the image. Without the parameter, either the file name of the image or nothing will be displayed, again depending on your browser. For example, [[File:Polish, Pork Chop & Onions.JPG|150px|Maxwell Street Polish sausages, pork chops, and onions on a grill]] will display Maxwell Street Polish sausages, pork chops, and onions on a grill as a tool tip. In this article, some of the images have this parameter and some don't. I'll add more if I get a chance, and other editors may feel free to do so also.
Maxwell Street Polish sausages, pork chops, and onions on a grill
— Mudwater (Talk) 23:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 Done — Mudwater (Talk) 00:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Steak and oyster pie

The Steak and oyster pie article says, "In the United States, it a regional dish of Norfolk, Virginia." But, I'm having trouble finding a reliable reference for this. When I google it I see some web pages that apparently have copied this sentence from Wikipedia, but that's about it. So, I'm going to remove it from this article. I'd be open to further discussion though. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Article sections

@Northamerica1000: I think that dividing the article into a small number of sections is a good way to organize it, so thanks for doing that. And I like the current sections, except that I would propose merging "soups and stews" back into the main section. Partly because it's sometimes a grey area whether a dish is a stew or not, and partly because it's kind of a small and amorphous group anyway. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mudwater. I like the separate section for soups and stews, because it serves to make it easier for readers to find dishes they may have a specific interest in. The present entries don't seem to be terribly ambiguous to me relative to their dish type, although this could occur in the future. Perhaps others will chime in here so we can get more opinions. North America1000 13:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
In general, I think sections are good. I have no objection to a soups and stews section. But I do get your point, Mudwater. So I guess I'm neutral. valereee (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Valereee: Nothing wrong with neutral. By the way, thanks for creating this article. Now I can't think how we ever got by without it. — Mudwater (Talk) 18:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Now there are twelve sections, the main "miscellaneous" one and eleven categories. I really think that's a bit too granular. I propose at least merging back a few of the smaller sections, like potato dishes, salads, and steak dishes. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that more dishes will be added to these sections, which would further support the use of sections, so people can find what they're seeking. North America1000 14:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I like having sections, as long as we don't have too many of them. So, it's a judgement call on which ones to have. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Regional dish or not

Regional dishes are foods that are strongly, or at least incidentally, associated with a particular region or location. Looking at this article, a lot of the entries in the list can only be found in a specific part of the country. Others started out localized but have gained more widespread acceptance -- for example, Philly cheesesteak, Buffalo wings, and eggs Benedict. That's all good. But I think we need to resist the temptation to consider a dish as regional just because we know where it originated, when it's not really associated with that location. The only one I have in mind right now is tater tots, unless that has some strongly localized history that I'm just not aware of. So, I think most of the list is fine, but for now I'd vote for getting rid of the tots. — Mudwater (Talk) 19:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense; I went ahead and nixed the tater tots entry. North America1000 21:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I think if we continue to use this general guideline, we'll be fine. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: Along similar lines I propose also removing chocolate chip cookie. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Mudwater: "Toll house cookies" is a very common American term and is synonymous with chocolate chip cookies, which were invented at the Toll House Inn in Whitman, Massachusetts. I have rewritten the entry in the article with the name "Toll House cookie". As such, I feel the entry is valid. Furthermore, Toll House cookies presently redirects to Chocolate chip cookie. North America1000 16:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Pie à la Mode Should Be Removed

Hey, Pie a la Mode should be removed from this list. For one thing, its origins have some controversy, and for another, it's not even remotely regional. Regional origin is not equivalent to regional food. Even its origins are questionable and encompass major parts of the US (from east coast all the way to midwest). This dish is found universally in the US. Recommend removing from list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.142.141 (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of regional dishes of the United States. 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

provel cheese

Is this really a dish? Or is it more of an ingredient?valereee (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

To me it does seem more like an ingredient than an actual dish. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

chicago pizza

I'm with Mudwater, just because thin crust pizza is popular in Chicago (as it is pretty much everywhere in the midwest) doesn't make it a notable local dish. valereee (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Barbecue styles

It seems to me that Chicago-style, Oklahoma-style, and South Carolina-style are all distinct styles of barbecue. This is explained in the article, and verified using appropriate references. Chicago-style includes the unique use of aquarium smokers. Oklahoma-style features smoked bologna. And South Carolina-style uses mustard-based "Carolina gold" sauce, and includes barbecue hash. I therefore think that removing these entries, as Berean Hunter has done (here and here), makes the article worse instead of better, however well-meaning the intention. So, I say, let's put 'em back! — Mudwater (Talk) 14:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

SC has a distinct mustard sauce for part of the state but not a distinct barbecue style. There is a difference. Sources used here indicate that the meat is done NC style (there are two of those styles proper) and do not uphold a unique style. The SC Tourism board has a campaign to create a pseudo history. Sauce is the only unique contribution to barbecue world.
OK is a blend of styles but nothing unique. Style isn't "what we do around here" unless it is unique and caught on. The source there has a COI and admits that people don't buy claims of style. There isn't a consensus of sources that it is.
Chicago has simply inherited that which came up the river. The Chicago barbecue restaurant scene doesn't reflect a distinct style. Aquarium smoker? That is a different style of smoker but not a barbecue style. How does it change the process in a unique way? What noticeable effect does this have on the meat? Smoked sausages (which isn't barbecue) is attributed to other places and not unique to Chicago. Houston barbecue tradition comes to mind more than Chicago. A closer look from the Chicago Tribune.
The goal isn't to allow pseudo styles for every state reflecting the modern creativity of those cooking. Proper styles have an older documented history. Find real books from 1980 or before to see if the style is real. No new ones have been invented since. As for more modern sources, Time magazine states there are four styles. 1 and so does The Smithsonian 2. The Culinary Institute of America lists only four distinct styles here. More on the real styles. Notice the quality of sources just went up significantly beyond the blogs that don't really support their points.
There is a commercial goal to declaring other (pseudo) styles and we shouldn't pander to it. Barbecue style should not be confused with particular styles used by restaurants, that is two different things.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter: Thanks for the reply. I can see that you've given this some thought, and what you're saying is reasonable. But, there's no formal definition of what a style of barbecue is. It's a grey area. And as far as any commercial goals, this wouldn't be promoting any particular brand or company. So, I still think the article would be better if it included these three entries. Or, if we were to take the approach that "two out of three ain't bad", we could include Chicago-style and South Carolina-style. Also, I am hoping that other interested editors will post their views here. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Mudwater, "But, there's no formal definition of what a style of barbecue is." - I gave you a ref with four distinctive styles...no more. That is researched by an accredited college. "this wouldn't be promoting any particular brand or company" - State boards promoting pseudo history are trying to draw tourists...that is commercial enough. Also, you haven't addressed my questions at all. The aquarium smoker? How does it change the process in a unique way? What noticeable effect does this have on the meat? I gave you sources that you don't seem to have acknowledged because you are wanting to accept things as fact that aren't. The article isn't made better by accepting styles that are modern fabrications. Where are those pre-1980 books that confirm existing styles?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Mudwater I think I'm with Berean Hunter on this. If a style isn't commented on in national publications as a regional dish, can it really be called a notable regional dish? valereee (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

jello salad

I don't know if this is actually a regional dish. I suspect its popularity was probably linked to recipes on the back of a jello package and were popular wherever jello was sold. Certainly now the popularity is limited to certain areas, but that's true of any out-of-fashion dish? valereee (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed this and agree that it isn't all that regional. The source states that it fell out of favor elsewhere but is still popular here in the South. "Jell-O salads are still widely consumed in the US, especially in the rural Midwest and the Deep South." Correct, there was no decline of these dishes here...Watergate salad, congealed salad, etc. are all still popular. 1 Jolly rancher gelatins also put a new twist on it, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

one table, more columns?

I wonder if a single sortable table with more columns (one for type of food, for instance) might be more usable? --valereee (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

My initial thought is that we're better off keeping the sections that we have now. They're pretty logical, and help make the list easier to navigate. I'd be open to further discussion though. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Mudwater, the reason I thought about it was sorting by region. If I want to see stuff from the south, I can't. --valereee (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Valereee I agree with you! I think one table that is sortable would be much smarter. Basically combine the tables and add a column for type of dishes. That's my vote. HighAtop94 (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea. But, sorting the table by region wouldn't work that well. Taking the example of food from the south, crawfish étouffée is from "Louisiana, Mississippi", Charleston red rice is from "the lowcountry of South Carolina and Georgia", and biscuits and gravy are from "Southern United States" -- so they wouldn't sort together. And I definitely wouldn't want to dumb down the locations to make them sort together. — Mudwater (Talk) 07:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Mudwater, I was thinking a standardized column region (with a drop-down to force selections) as an additional column, separate from the current column for specific location description. I too wouldn't want to dumb down the current descriptors; I just want to be able to group them together so I can, for instance, see everything from the south. --valereee (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Can you provide links to one or more existing tables that are like that? Then I could get a visual of what you're talking about. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Mudwater, hmmmm...I have no idea where I'd even find one. Maybe I could copy one of these into my sandbox and see if I can do that...although I have zero idea how to create (or even if it's possible) a drop-down --valereee (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Mudwater, okay, here's what I mean: User:Valereee/sandbox
What I've done is added a sortable "Regions" column and make the "Associated regions" column unsortable, as it wasn't really useful for that function. If we make it into one single table, we'd also add the sortable "Type" column, which would I think turn the whole table more usable as you wouldn't have to search multiple tables to find a dish that isn't a clear member of any one category. You could find all foods from the south or all foods that were sandwiches by sorting. (My original reason for starting this list was to be able to find all regional foods from a certain area, and as it is right now I have to check multiple tables to find everything that is, for instance, from the south. And I can't even sort the tables in a way that makes that easy to do -- all the regions are really not sortable.) --valereee (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@valereee: I see. Very interesting. I shall ponder this further. And I hope other editors will click through to look at that, and give their opinions here. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, here's another example of the same thing, using different types of dishes. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Mudwater, that's exactly what I'd like to see the entire page turn into! --valereee (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
In the above Valereee and Mudwater both seem to support, as do I (for what it's worth) having only one sortable table for the regional dishes. Valereee proposed it, Mudwater initiall opposed but now seems to be OK with the change. Does that mean it can get made? I'd help but not sure I know a fast way to do it. HighAtop94 (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm still dithering. Or, undecided-like. I would like to hear from more editors about this. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Mudwater, the other editors who have edited this page most frequently are Northamerica1000 and Berean Hunter --valereee (talk) valereee (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm still for separate sections. The article is very long, and one long list will make it a long wall of text. In its present form, I feel that it's easier to navigate. North America1000 08:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I disagree North America. While a large table will make it a long wall of text I don't think that's bad because (a) this is a list, it should be structured as data, we should use the capacity of an interactive medium to allow readers to sort and organize, this is not primarily meant to be read from start to finish and (b) as one table it is more useful, the present form makes it impossible to find "food of the American south". HighAtop94 (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
For reference, the previous discussion history about dividing into sections shows the origins of the current layout.
I think North America raises good points and when combined with the advice given at Wikipedia:Content forking#List formats, "For that reason it is often a good idea to retain a structured list (or bullet list, or numbered list, ...) even when a table is provided with basically the same content", means that this page should probably stay in its current format. That same advice also gives some criteria for considering a second page where the table could be presented. I would suggest that this page be kept as is per North America and that the discussion should evolve to whether or not to have the second page with the single table. I understand where valereee and others are coming from as well. It is a bit odd to not have dishes grouped by the regions when it is a list based on region. Using her example, if I wanted to find Southern dishes I would check Category:Cuisine of the Southern United States and List of foods of the Southern United States but not this current list.
The current page layout has sections listed alphabetically by food type as listed in the table of contents, and then alphabetically within each section by dish/food name. (some anticipated but missing sections: beverages, beef dishes, pork dishes, vegetable dishes). This is the List_of_regional_dishes_of_the_United_States_grouped_by_food_type and there is a desire to also have List_of_regional_dishes_of_the_United_States_grouped_by_region (somehow, but table has been recommended). It almost seems like a good job for a bot (script) to scrape this page periodically and produce the second page with the table automatically to keep list maintenance and curation at a minimum.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Berean Hunter You say that we should have separate tables because the discussion history has good reasons and because our guidelines for Wikipedia:Content forking#List formats suggests it. I disagree. In the discussion hisotry there are no reasons why separate tables make sense. In the guidelines for list formats there's a preference for bullet lists but no discussion of one verus multiple tables. I think the power of a database, and a list is a database, appears when like data is together and we've not done that. We are not taking advantage of the power of an on-line document and using conventions that are more applicable to print. But also know I'm responding becaues I figure good to have discussion, I won't get angry if this goes "against" me, will shut up if asked, etc. I'm figuring feedback and discussion is good. HighAtop94 (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's another possible approach. We could add a new section to the current article, with a summary table of everything, sortable by type of dish and by region. Something like this. There are no pictures, and no footnotes. The sortable columns are name, type, and region. Unsortable are original area (or some other heading to that effect) and description. But the gist of each row is just copied from the main tables. On the plus side, this might provide our readers with the best of both worlds, in the same article. On the minus side, it means double updates for any additions or changes, thus making the article harder to maintain. Also, later editors might innocently change the "type" or "region" columns, in an effort to improve the content, which would degrade the sortability of those columns. Still, I think it's worth considering. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Mudwater, that would work for me! --valereee (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, filthy casual here, hope I'm using this correctly. I'm not a Wikipedia editor, but I am a traveler, and I was so frustrated by the layout and organization of the information here that I felt forced to edit the page myself for future use. If I'm trucking along Interstate 90, I want to be able to easily find regional dishes along the way without having to sift through a haystack of text. I don't want to miss out on the Jucy Lucy because I searched the list for Minnesota instead of Minneapolis, you know what I mean? NJDevil1 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This looks pretty good to me. For those who are not aware, NJDevil1 has added a new "General Region" column to each of the dozen or so tables in the article, with values such as South, Midwest, and so on. This could be a good compromise or middle ground between doing nothing and combining all the tables into one. Pinging editors who have participated in the discussion above -- @Valereee, Berean Hunter, HighAtop94, and Northamerica1000: — Mudwater (Talk) 22:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Mudwater. I also spent some a few hours creating a page that was rejected, "List of Regional Beverages of the United States." I wonder if someone who is perhaps better at this than I am can re-submit. The list included drinks (non-alcoholic and alcoholic) that aren't distributed nationwide or that only appear in certain markets, like Manhattan Special, Moxie (of Maine), kvass, Kremas (a Haitian eggnog you won't find outside of Miami), the Ramos Gin Fizz of New Orleans, et cetera. NJDevil1 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@NJDevil1: About Draft:List of regional beverages of the United States, I'd say wait and see what response you get at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#04:06:32, 24 June 2019 review of submission by NJDevil1. But, the comment on the draft was "Fails WP:GNG - lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources." What they're probably thinking is that the article should have more reliable, third-party references in the form of footnotes, to establish the that subject of the article meets the Wikipedia "general notability guideline", which is at that WP:GNG link. Basically, that's "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." If you look at this article -- "List of regional dishes in the United States" -- you'll see that each list entry has one or more footnotes from newspapers, magazines, journals, books... that type of thing. So, you'd be better off adding one or more footnotes for each entry in the proposed article. There's two good ways to find those. (1) Do a web search for "[name of beverage] + [region]" -- for example, "Ramos Gin Fizz + New Orleans" -- and pick the one, or several, best sources that turn up. Or (2) just copy the one or several best footnotes from the main Wikipedia article about the beverage. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I do like the addition of the column, but it still means searching multiple tables to do what NJDevill is wanting to do (which is also what I want to do!) I'd still like to see a page with the full table, personally. --valereee (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Ugh bad ping NJDevil1 --valereee (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Second page, all one table?

Per Berean Hunter should a second page, replicating the information in this page but all in a single more-easily sortable table, be created? And yes, as BH discussed, would necessitate changes/new entries being made into both pages, and a bot would be helpful --valereee (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Regional dishes by region section?

I propose adding a "Regional dishes by region" section to this article. The section would list the dishes by region, with each dish being just a bullet point -- and each dish / bullet point would link to the table entry for that dish, whichever section that's in. Yeah, that's a great idea! I've started working on this, in my sandbox. I've created the new section and started adding dishes to it. So far I have the dishes from the main (first) section, the barbecue section, and the bread section. I'll add that to the article now. So, what does everybody think? Including but not limited to @Valereee, Berean Hunter, HighAtop94, Northamerica1000, and NJDevil1: — Mudwater (Talk) 12:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Totally willing to give that a look, and thanks for working for a solution! --valereee (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Comes across as a decent way to move forward. Wouldn't surprise me if someone complains about content overlap/duplication at a later time, though. North America1000 18:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
This looks like a good solution and I like it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: What do you think so far? — Mudwater (Talk) 11:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I like it! I guess when an item in the main list is removed, the link at the bottom will turn red, but how do we make sure the two synch otherwise? --valereee (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: If an item is removed from one of the main tables, the link in the new section will stay blue (because the page it's linking to, the article itself, will still be there). As for keeping the two parts of the article in synch, I don't think there's an automated way to do it, we'd just have to patrol it ourselves. You could say that's a disadvantage of this idea. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, all done! — Mudwater (Talk) 16:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hamdog is not a SE regional dish.

I deleted the entry for "Hamdog". It is not a Southeastern Regional Dish. It was the product of a single bar in Georgia. Mulligan's of Decatur. It was first offered in Spring 2005, and the bar closed for good in Spring 2008. I am an Atlantan, and I have never seen it offered anywhere since Mulligan's closed. The SE has very many bona fide regionally distinctive dishes, and this was included simply for a combination of shock value and perpetuating the stereotype of Southerners as ignorant cholesterol addicts. --Kajidi (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

hoppin' john

An editor who is cool, where in that source does it say especially the Carolinas? --valereee (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If you look in that source, all the sources inside the source have something to do with Carolinas' history. An editor who is cool, 25 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by An editor who is cool (talk • contribs)

Regional dishes by region -- links

About the "Regional dishes by region" section, there was a previous discussion on this talk page (see above) where it was agreed that this section would contain links to the individual table entries, not to the separate articles. This was part of a broader discussion about how best to have a list by region. So, the article should be left the way it was, unless there's now some agreement, or broader sentiment, to change it. I'm therefore going to revet this recent edit, at least for now. Pinging those who are or were involved in this. @Weiszab, Valereee, Northamerica1000, and Berean Hunter: — Mudwater (Talk) 00:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Mudwater, I prefer it the way it was, but happy to discuss further. Weiszab probably didn't realize this had been discussed. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_regional_dishes_of_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1168972941"