Jump to content

Talk:Pastry bag

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

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus for move –Juliancolton | Talk 01:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pastry bag → Piping bag — I have never heard the expression "pastry bag" and cannot see how this is descriptive of the item in question, whose purpose is to pipe icing or cream onto food. Deb (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you would only have heard of it if you have done a bit of cooking or cake decorating. That's why it needs to be properly explained. "Icing bag" would work, but of course it is not only used for icing. I've never known it be used for pastry-making, but maybe there's something I don't know. Deb (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What you personally have heard of is not a good criterion. The current name is more common, as any search will find (see e.g., [1] vs. [2]; [3] vs. [4]) so no reason to move. Whether it makes sense from a descriptive aspect (which it does to me) is also not relevant. Language is a funny thing and often the actual word or phrase denoting some topic makes little sense descriptively, and yet has no affect on what it is actually called in English.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's no references in the article, so there's no basis to make any decision.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious as to why you think there is a necessity for present references in an article to establish the proper title. As a random example, if Wikipedia did not have an article on E.E. Cummings, and an unreferenced stub was created at Edward Estlin Cummings followed by a requested move providing evidence that his name is overwhelmingly more commonly cited at the initialed form, what would it matter that the article had no references?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consult references elsewhere. A cookery book would have been better, but the OED was at hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we don't rely on the references in the article(s) then we're just bitchin' and moaning at each other over personal opinions. All that leads to is repeted RM's, continuing controversy, and at the extreme even arbitration hearings. The only real means of consistently avoiding all of that is to use the references, and since there should be references in the article anyway, regardless of naming issues, it's even more important to ask for and use them. Incidentally, I should point out that adding references just to establish a name isn't normally required or desired. What I'm talking about is refernces which support the normal content of the article.
        — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You lost me. Sources in articles come from the outside and that's where we look for them if there are not enough sources to look at already present, which is the state of affairs we see in operation here. Numerous move requests occur on articles with no references and we would be hamstrung if we were forced to only consider references already cited. Now, if it was typical that people threw up their hands when they came upon an article with no references and just went with their personal opinions in response, then it would result in all those problems you state, but that is not typical. Moreover, even fairly well cited articles often do not contain the breadth of sources such that they form a representative sample for primary topic and common naming assessment.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Humm... I don't think that I'm as formulaic about following a "rule" regarding references as you seem to be perceiving. As with most issues on Wikipedia, it's more of an art form then it is simply coloring within the lines. I obviously have (sometimes strong) personal views on issues, but I do my best to set them aside in all cases and look at the article content and references in order to make a (hopefully) informed decision on these. When it comes to the sort of RM we have here, I really don't see any rational means to make a decision, aside from relying on the opinions of the participants who happen to be here right now, and that's no long term solution. This thing is a cooking instrument, and there are plenty of books and video about cooking and it's instruments about (Rachel Ray and Julia Child spring immediately to mind here, as both have discussed cooking utensils extensively). If someone finds a reference that describes what this is, it should be added to this article regardless, and as a byproduct that should settle the debate here as well. Doesn't anyone have ready access to a Betty Crocker Cookbook or someting similar? I suppose that I could call my mom, and ask her to look it up (LOL!).
            — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay. I don't think you need to go to your mother's bookshelf:-) Even a cursory review of the Google Book results for "pastry bag" recipe I previously cited are pretty convincing for the question in front of us. See, e.g., this, from the first page of results.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, yea but... are we all driving by here, or is there someone who is actively maintaining this article? I'm certainly willing to pitch in, but I'm certainly no cook, and the RM is really the only thing that brought me here.
                — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's great when people who come to an article for a different reason than just to fix it take the reins and do improve it (especially by sourcing an unsourced article) but that's really up to the individual editors. As has been often said (by way of analogy) regarding AfD, while articles are often improved by users when they go through the process, "AfD is not an article cleanup brigade". I might add some sources but I am in the middle of writing an article I hope to get to FA quality and my time is mostly being spent there. In other words, yes, we're all driving by it seems. and someone may or may not improve it, but that's up to them, and really separate from the RM process.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This appears to be chiefly another Anglo-American conflict; pastry bag is the American term. The cook I consulted suggests, and so does the OED, that there may be an incipient differentiation: piping bags may be smaller and with finer nozzles, thus more suited to frosting than to dough or mashed potatoes. But this (do not cite the OED; I'm reading between the lines) should be at most a line in the article, not a separate article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 30 August 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pastry_bag&oldid=1200276892"