Jump to content

Talk:Pizza cheese/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

(Comment)

This must be a joke. To put a cheese sort and calling it Pizza cheese is a bit too much. Your criteria is based on use. The cheese itself, the cheese type cannot be pizza cheese. You have to provide names of types of cheeses based on their characteristics not on their use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.190.213 (talk • contribs) 30 May 2007‎ (UTC)

Sources

Google Scholar has many articles directly about this topic. See this search. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Almost all are about the manufacture of low-moisture mozzarella... --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. Rather, many are directly about the topic. If you haven't already done so, don't forget to check out the sources beyond the first page of results. Your dismissal of entire pages of potential sources is concerning. It appears that you're attempting to disqualify the topic's notability from the start, rather than addressing the actual sources one-by-one. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD discussion

The information that has recently been have added is totally unrelated to the article at hand:

  1. Several are about USDA guidelines about frozen pizzas and are not about the subject
  2. The journal articles are about the manufacture of mozzarella, processed cheese and cheese analogues not any specific product known as pizza cheese.
  3. In every single case the term pizza cheese is being used simply as a synonym for those products and is not about actual products called pizza cheese.

Because these links are simply to articles that use the terms "pizza" and "cheese" in the title or body and are not actually about the product, they are not appropriate for inclusion. In fact their inclusion is nothing more than source dumping in an attempt to force the article to meet the notability standards, which it does not. As such I have challenged their inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Source evaluation

Research

  • Kindstedt, P.S. "Recent developments in the science and technology of pizza cheese". Australian journal of dairy technology. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
  • Breene, W.F. (July 27, 1964). "Manufacture of Pizza Cheese without Starter". Volume 47, Issue 11. Journal of Dairy Science. pp. 1173–1180. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
  • Quarne, E.L. (April 1968). "Recovery of Milk Solids in Direct Acidification and Traditional Procedures of Manufacturing Pizza Cheese". Volume 51, Issue 4. Journal of Dairy Science. pp. 527–530. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
  • "Effect of incorporation of denatured whey proteins on chemical composition and functionality of pizza cheese". Australian journal of dairy technology. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
  • Kindstedt, P. S.; ; et al. (1997). "Chemically-acidified pizza cheese production and functionality". Irish Republic, Dairy Products Research Centre [5th Cheese Symposium]; Irish Republic, Univ. of Cork. Retrieved September 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Bachmann, Hans-Peter (July 11, 2011). "Cheese analogues: a review". Volume 11, Issues 4–7. International Dairy Journal. pp. 505–515. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
  • Question? "Cheese analogues: a review" may be off topic, although in the abstract it states, "Cheese analogues represent little threat to the continued consumption of natural cheeses: Their major role at present is undoubtedly in the cost-cutting exercises of pizza manufacturers." May be usable to verify information. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Books

News sources

  • "Pizza Cheese Popular". The Hartford Courant. November 4, 1962. Retrieved September 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)

Patents

  • Reinbold; ; et al. (April 18, 1978). "Preparation of Pizza Cheese". United States Patent and Trademark Office. Retrieved September 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Comments

  • Many of the sources are directly about pizza cheese, specifically the first five research sources listed above. These are certainly suitable to expand and improve the article. These 5 research sources state that they're about "pizza cheese" directly, and then afterward sometimes just use the word "cheese", because it's unnecessary in research papers and journals to use the full noun-phrase "pizza cheese" repeatedly thereafter when the specific context of pizza cheese has already been stated, such as in research paper abstracts. In these instances, and in many others listed above, it's already clearly implied that latter use of the word "cheese" is in the context of "pizza cheese." Northamerica1000(talk) 09:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal of bad references per this comment pbp 04:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Eight of the sources above are directly on-topic about pizza cheese. Others may not be entirely about the topic alone, but include information about it, and may be usable to verify information. Contrary to the objection at the header of this discussion thread, most of these sources are directly related to the topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Some sources

The topic obviously meets WP:GNG. Manufactures are going to make cheese specifically for one of the worlds most popular foods and reliable sources are going to write about it: e.g., Glanbia forges (pounds) 30m alliance with US cheese group Plan is to expand further into lucrative EU pizza cheese market (Irish Times August 12, 2000), Effect of incorporation of denatured whey proteins on chemical composition and functionality of pizza cheese (Australian Journal of Dairy Technology April 30, 2001), Whey proteins and pizza cheese (Dairy Industries International September 30, 2001); Formidable fortunes: This year it paid to be a butcher, a baker and a pizza cheese maker (National Post May 25, 2002); Pizza cheese to come from milked cats (Guardian November 2, 2007); Saputo has decided not to reopen its Vermont pizza cheese plant (Dairy Foods December 1, 2008); Chr Hansen and Novozymes develop enzyme for producing pizza cheese from whey (Chemical Business News March 9, 2009). I'm not sure why there is resistance to this topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Because not a single article is about a product or item known as pizza cheese. In every single case the term is being use as a synonym for mozzarella or some sort of processed cheese food product. There is no thing in real life called pizza cheese. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems like you're (User:Jerem43) trying to disqualify the topic's notability, rather than discussing the actual sources. Consider evaluating each source separately, rather than making generalized statements that immediately dismiss all of them en masse. Note that a proper evaluation of the sources has occurred above. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The topic isn't notable and the stuff you're adding does not make it so. And I have been reading them, and their still not doing it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but your assessment is very subjective. For example, how is an article about the "Recent developments in the science and technology of pizza cheese" in the WP:BRD discussion section above not about the topic? This is significant coverage directly about the topic, as are many of the other sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Having the term in the title does not make the article about something called pizza cheese if the term being used is a simply being used as a synonym for mozzarella manufacture. When we have a subject that goes by multiple names, we do not have and article for each variation on that name. The sources you provide prove that this isn't a real thing but simply a generic term used by the authors of the sources to familiarize the reader with the subject. In almost every case the articles go on to describe the manufacture of the aforementioned cheeses that go on pizza. These products already have their own articles, and the string of conscious thoughts tied together by the fact that people use the term pizza cheese to describe them on the page should be broken up and put into their respective articles and strengthening those articles. This page should be a redirect pointing to those three pages.
And stop saying I am not reading the articles, that I am applying bias to the argument, et cetera. Questioning my research into the subject does not make your argument stronger. I have taken the time to read through these various posts and I simply do not see what you are seeing. There is a difference of opinions as to the subject of these sources you added, not the quality. These are very good sources, but they are not about the subject of this article and do not establish notability or even verify the term. Remember, comment on the argument, not the contributor.
Finally, please stop breaking up other contrib's posts, it makes reading through the subject harder. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: "breaking up other contrib's posts." Sorry, but I'm the person that posted the sources in the above WP:BRD discussion section, so technically it would "breaking up" my own post, rather than another contributor's. However, the review is functional, and this type of style has significant precedent on Wikipedia. It prevents having to restate the sources continuously and having to scroll back and forth between comments and the sources. See Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/August 2012 for another example of the use and functionality of this style. Obviously, we disagree about the notability of this topic, but it's all good. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree. Best, Northamerica1000(talk) 06:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I have plainly demonstrated, through merging of nearly all the material elsewhere, that this article serves no clear purpose except to compile information we can easily include in other articles. As such, I think we should restore my bold effort to turn this page into a disambiguation page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I was getting the quote from the deletion review and writing my reply while you posted this. Anyway, see my response below. I find it rather unlikely there will be any consensus for your actions. Dream Focus 00:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 28

  • That's what the result of the deletion review was. It did not say to eliminate the article and replace it with a disambiguate page as The Devil's Advocate did, so I of course did revert that action. [1] There was no discussion to make such a radical change, and obviously many would be against it. I find it unlikely anyone wouldn't realize that after participating in the AFD and the deletion review. Dream Focus 00:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The redirection of this article, as shown by the copious sourcing found during the AfD. Devil's Advocate made similar arguments in the AfD and DRV, where he was opposed by a large majority of editors.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I would also note that the ability to merge articles does not equal necessity. This was one of the main points raised in the AfD discussion that was found exceedingly weak by new editors reviewing the situation.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no point in keeping this page as an article when nearly every last scrap of information can easily be included elsewhere in articles where it makes more sense. As you can see here, here, here, and here, no significant information was deleted so you are essentially objecting to the page not being an article, when those edits clearly illustrate that no article is needed. I find discourse is a lot less compelling than bold edits.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    You ignored consensus. You just decided what everyone else said and thought didn't matter, you'd just go ahead and do it your way. It makes more sense to have it here, where anyone who wants to learn about the cheese they put on pizza, will find it in one convenient place not spread out all over the place. Dream Focus 01:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't ignore consensus at all. There was no consensus for keeping this as an article and that is what the DRV decided, even though the keep arguments in the AfD were the typical invalid arguments that should be dismissed when gauging consensus on a merger. A disambiguation page insures that people can locate the relevant material. People don't need an article to tell them what kind of cheese people put on pizza.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It decided there was no consensus for deleting this article. That's what "no consensus" means. And you have decided that anyone who made an argument you disagreed with were obviously invalid, so you didn't need to count them, consensus was determined only by people who agreed with you. Dream Focus 07:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

stop Stop
The consensus was against deletion, not moves or merges. A "keep" on AfD or DR does not preclude a discussion on a moving or merging the article. How ever we should still have a discussion. DA, would you consider starting a proper merge discussion? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as I have already merged what could be merged, we are only left with a discussion about how to deal with this page now that it just has the same material that is now included in other articles. Changing it to a dab is the most appropriate change.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Jeremy, The Devil's Advocate knew many would object to a merger, but did it anyway, instead of starting a discussion he knew would end in no consensus to merge. You can read his above statements to see how easily he dismisses the opinions of others as invalid, and believes he can just go against consensus and do what he wants. That's now how Wikipedia works. Dream Focus 07:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't care. Start a discussion and stop arguing about who is right or wrong. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Discuss it outside of the merge discussion

You state the information in this article is duplicated from other articles, but you got have that backwards, information from this article was duplicated into them. Dream Focus 08:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Read the whole proposal and don't parse words. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Its worded in a misleading way. What parts of this article, if any, were taken from other articles? Dream Focus 09:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion below is for the merge proposal, not a debate on what has transpired above. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't. Read the guidelines. It is not a conversation, debate or anything else. It is a poll on consensus and I would prefer that you keep simple and concise and not turn it into anything else. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Point to this guideline you believe exist. I assure you, it does not. You said something and I responded to it in the proper manner. And I don't care what you want, Wikipedia isn't going to suddenly stop doing things the normal way simply you wish it differently. Don't move someone's post to a different section. Dream Focus 09:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The guidelines were set up as a point of courtesy. They are not binding, but simple reminders to behave yourself and as a request not to turn a merge discussion into another argument over who is right or wrong or who has the "correct" facts. Your post has no basis on my opinion and is distraction from the discussion about merging this article into the others. If you want to contribute, contribute a !vote – don't try to debate other contributors support/oppose votes. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
You don't want me to respond to something, then don't say it. Don't go moving people's post around, that against the rules I'm certain. Dream Focus 09:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge

There is no consensus to merge the pizza cheese article into other articles, which after the recent AfD and DRV should not be a surprise. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a proposal to merge sections of this article in to several other articles. The reason for this proposal is because the information contained in this article is duplicated from other articles or would be a better fit within those articles.

If the merge is decided upon, this page would become a disambiguation page pointing to those other articles.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - The reasons for this article are forced. This is an attempt to create an article based upon a widely used synonym for the three merge candidates listed. In most, if not all, listed sources the term "pizza cheese" is used as a place holder for low-moisture mozzarella. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Pizza cheese is very well-documented in reliable sources, and it is a notable mass-produced food product around the world. Rather than merging the content into several different articles, which homogenizes the topic, why not just leave this article in place and have links in other articles to this one? Makes perfect sense, really. After all, just read and review all of the reliable sources that qualify this topic as having a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Additionally, there are eight sources directly about this topic listed on this talk page above at WP:BRD discussion that are under discussion. Also note that the AfD discussion for this article resulted in "Keep." Northamerica1000(talk) 12:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Except they don't do that North. Anyone who reads those sources carefully will find the term is being used most often to refer to mozzarella, especially low-moisture mozzarella, and less often used for analogue pizza cheese. There is no reason to have this article detailing those subjects, when we have articles that can deal with them just as effectively.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The subject clearly has individual notability, as it is discussed in its own right separately from the articles presented above. I see no reason why this should be merged to any other article. SilverserenC 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I have notified everyone involved in the AfD and would like to note the material has already been copied over to the relevant articles (see these diffs: [2], [3], [4], [5]) so this is essentially a discussion about whether to make this a disambiguation page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The "subject" here isn't a thing. By and large, the sources are discussing cheese that is being used on pizza, not a particular cheese. If I put aside money for a new pair of shoes and call it "shoe money", it is not a different kind of money, it is still US dollars (for me). Lettuce that I buy to make a salad does not become "salad lettuce", it is still whatever varieties I bought. There simply is not a topic here. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
When we are setting aside money to buy shoes, it has nothing to do with learning how to make shoes or how shoes are made, or how to make money or how money is made. I'm trying to recall the days when I first started learning about how to make pizza. It was before the personal computer became a mass phenomenon. Back then, I looked in cookbooks, for "pizza" as an index entry, at least at first. Were I learning afresh today, I would probably go to a search engine. First, I would type in "pizza", and look at the results, nope, that's all about where to buy already made pizzas, so the search needs refining. Next, I would try one more word. It could be "pizza recipe". After making some of those, and if I was disappointed (I would be, as it's not easy to make well, and requires some relatively obscured-by-mythology skill-sets), I would start looking for other items like cheese pizza (I'd see restaurants), so next exchange the order and try "pizza cheese" and "pizza dough" and "pizza sauce". Bingo! "Pizza cheese" is an article that should be kept by wikipedia, but the article needs improvement. Gzuufy (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support While Pizza cheese as it stands is suitably sourced, there isn't enough material to merit a separate page, especially given that the subject isn't really independent of Pizza. Yes, I realize that it's sometimes a particular formulate of cheese, but it's a formulation specifically for pizzas and not anything else. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The content doesn't need to be in multiple places. I also think the proposed disambiguation page should link to Pizza as well. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support: Not enough information that's independent of other existing pages. Anything that passes GNG may still be merged pbp 22:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Largely per Summer. "Pizza cheese" is cheese that goes on pizza, which constitutes a number of different varieties of cheese. The topic is cheeses that go on pizza, not a separate, independent concept of cheese, and thus should be discussed under the headings of "pizza" and "[type of] cheese", as necessary. My attention was drawn to this discussion here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per the sources I cited in the AfD, Pizza cheese is a subject and scientific topic wholly apart from pizza. Unfortunately too many of those supporting a merge simply have not read the scientific literature. Perhaps they would like to interview the students at UW-Wisconsin who actually do research on it.[6]. Wisconsin obviously is famous for its cheese and cheese research, as dairy is a discipline apart from bread. You'd note the scientific literature on pizza cheese also appears in cheese and dairy focused journals. Also, I would like to note how much time people like to waste on wikipedia. This is mostly a rehash of the same people and positions we saw in the AfD. You people should all be writing more articles, there are so many notable articles that need to be written. I will give suggestions to anyone who asks.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Note - As the one who started this proposal, I can say I did read the sources and found them to be less than supportive of the term pizza cheese than what has been claimed in other discussions. The term usage is almost exclusively as synonym for mozzarella and in most cases the term is only used in the article tiles. Yeah, I know I violated the very guidelines I asked others to follow. The claims made are rather spurious and I felt a need to address them. Again. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I believe there is sufficient differentiation between products, and not enough overlap, to justify a merge. If one is going to merge mozzarella made with buffalo milk with processed pizza cheese and imitation soy products, if anything a study of contrasts of real versus imitation, then why stop there? Shouldn't such an article also need to include provolone, and probably parmesan, to give sufficient coverage to real cheese types commonly used on pizza? My initial impression is that at most, clear links near the top of each article linking to related-usage cheese types, such as the proposed merger titles, would seem a better solution. Gzuufy (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is a rehash of the argument at the deletion. Clear case was presented to keep the article. Also, I would like to note how much time people like to waste on wikipedia. This is mostly a rehash of the same people and positions we saw in the AfD. You people should all be writing more articles, there are so many notable articles that need to be written. - yes. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I have actually demonstrated with edits that all this content can easily be put into these other articles without any content of note being removed. What we have is a term that has various definitions, rather than being a single unified subject. Such cases are more reasonably addressed with a disambiguation page that directs readers to subjects that are commonly associated with that term.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, there was never a consensus against merging. In the AfD, about half the people said "merge"; the DRV was closed with no prejudice against merging. It isn't exactly a rehash of the AfD either; GNG is irrelevant to a merge discussion pbp 16:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • People that want the article kept, are of course against merging it. That's why they said "keep" in the AFD instead of going along with those that wanted "merge". Since most said keep or merge in the AFD, this is just the same discussion over again, and will obviously end in the same way. Dream Focus 17:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Some find the material people have worked to put into this article to be worth saving, even if you don't consider it to be "content of note". Not everything would have a lasting place in another article. Dream Focus 17:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • When I say "content of note" I am talking about stuff such as the lede, images, and captions that are all just covering stuff covered in the material that has already been copied over to other articles. As far as I can tell no facts would be lost by turning this page into a dab.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to excellent sourcing of article, and large volume of cheese used only on pizza. Also, there is certainly more that can be said about pizza cheese, which is obviously best said here, rather than an article that focusses on a particular brand of cheese. I have no objection to duplication of information in other articles, but see no pressing case to remove/redirect this one as well.  The Steve  18:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem is that you would have to demonstrate that something significant included here cannot conceivably be included in those other articles. "Excellent sourcing" is not an argument against a merge. All the sources either refer to "pizza cheese" in the context of any cheese put on a pizza, analogue pizza cheese, or mozzarella, the latter being the most common specific usage. It isn't treated as independent of these subjects, but rather as an alternative term for those subjects, which is why disambiguation is appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, actually it is, per the GNG - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". So, the GNG suggests to me that excellent sourcing presumes a stand-alone article. Also, cheese that is specifically designed to go on pizza is different from cheese that is put on pizza. For instance, a local pizza chain uses brick cheese from a local farm on its pizza. Thus, brick is pizza cheese, but is not mentioned in the article, because it is not pizza cheese. I had a look at the Provel article, which is a notable brand of cheese started specifically for pizza - it has fewer references and would, in fact, be a good merge to this article, rather than vice-versa.  The Steve  10:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
DA, I hereby suggest you self-ban yourself from commenting in this discussion any further, its not good for your health. Pizza cheese (which is definitely not the same thing as traditional mozzarella, per the copious sources) and Hot dog bun are less important than your health. Why not trying writing an article? I'd suggest Griffith Gaunt, a very popular 1866 novel with lots of fun material and copious sourcing available, or perhaps Thomas Appelquist, 1997 winner of the Sakurai Prize. But perhaps those don't interest you. You could perhaps improve David E. Carter which you wrote in 2008 and have left tagged as "needing additional sources" for almost 3 years. Or I see you have some interest in Kosovo, we need an article on Mehmed Hoxha the first head of tte Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, who has an article on four wikipedias, but not on our wikipedia yet.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Milowent, perhaps you should stay on the topic here, rather than telling editors who disagree with your opinion what you think they should do. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I should. Honestly, I'm going to leave this discussion alone now for the reasons I stated above in my !vote. I've said my piece, and there are better things to do. But I'm tackling Griffith Gaunt if he doesn't take it!--Milowent • hasspoken 21:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
All due respect, I will work on articles when I wish to work on them and am not going to take direction from you as to what articles should be the focus of that work. Should you wish to add anything then I ask you to use my talk page to do so.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment More on the relation between sourcing and merges. My opinion is that the more and better your sources, the greater the argument for a stand-alone article. Here is my off-the-cuff estimate:

  1. 2 sources: Meets the GNG, but only barely : I would support a merge
  2. 3-5 sources: A fair idea to merge, but should be determined on a case-by-case basis. If this article had that number, DAs arguments would be convincing.
  3. 6-9 sources: A strong argument for a stand-alone article. Merge would be difficult for me to support
  4. 10+ sources: A stand-alone article is probably best. I would oppose a merge.

This article has 17 sources, including scholarly and scientific ones on the importance of pizza cheese to the industry, and thus my argument re Excellent sources, above.  The Steve  10:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Having 17 sources is not a big deal, especially when dealing with an article that covers multiple subjects that go by the same term. When those subjects are all closely related to other subjects that also have articles, the argument for an independent article is quite weak. The key is whether taking the material we have here and adding it to another article would make that article too detailed on the subject. In this case we have multiple articles where material can be moved, and the material has already been moved to those articles. Anyone can go look at those articles to see that the material added there does not go into unnecessary detail on those pages. Essentially everything included here is preserved in those articles and even expanding on the pizza cheese material in those articles would not make any of them too detailed on the subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
So what would be for you? 18? 20? Some other arbitrary number? Last I recall, ONE was enough... - jc37 22:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Is there some sort of joke in that? If there is then I don't get it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the absolute number of sources is arbitrary/irrelevant and what they say is much more relevant. If you have a hundred sources that all say the same short tidbit, you still can't parley that into a full article pbp 23:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The argument is being using in many of the oppose !votes is that it falls into the trap "it is sourced therefore it it should be left alone..." The problem with that argument is it fails to address the reasons issues behind the merge proposal.

Yes, the article has sources that are of very good quality, but are they being properly used? Are they actually about the subject? A cursory examination of them would indicate that all of the sources are about something called "pizza cheese" – this would indicate that there is a valid reason for leaving the article as it stands now. However a deeper investigation of the sources finds that outside the titles, the term "pizza cheese" is almost never again used. As DA and others have stated, the vast majority of these sources not about soemthing called "pizza cheese". What the are actually about is the manufacture of low-moisture mozzarella, the FDA/USDA regulations that define what constitutes frozen pizza, and he manufacture of processed cheese substitutes that have similar characteristics as mozzarella so they can be used as low-cost substitute in Italian dishes including pizza. The main issue is regarding these sources is that the term "pizza cheese" is not being used as an actual subject within the sources; instead "pizza cheese" is being used as a synonym for those other products.

Secondly, we have to ask if this article is simply a construct of information that actually belongs in other articles as opposed to a stand alone article? The way this article stands now, it is primarily information that is found in the three main articles I listed in the discussion header. So you have to ask yourself, with the information being found elsewhere in WP, do we need a separate article that rehashes it? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Neither of the above arguments (Sources could be minor/the same and "pizza cheese" is merely a synonym for other products) are compelling at all in this case. The sources are not minor and are from widely different sources. Yes, the quality of the sources does affect my argument, but in the case of pizza cheese, these sources strengthen the case for a stand-alone. As far as saying that "pizza cheese" is a mere synonym, the opposite is true. Some of these cheese analogues/substitutes were invented specifically for pizza, which means that they were deliberately making pizza cheese in response to market forces before it was decided which cheese category it was in. The Technology of Cheesemaking mentions the "pizza cheese market" - There is a market for pizza cheese, so prevalent is this product. How big is the mozzarella market or the cheese analogue market in comparison to the pizza cheese market, which has spurred research since the 1960s? This might seem a trivial thing to you or me, but it is obviously very big business, and a stand-alone article is best.  The Steve  01:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support merge, per nominator, SummerPhD, and Dori. Horologium (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are dozens if not hundreds of cheeses used on pizzas and a good article would reflect that. When articles are built under duress it's unsurprising that the quality can be haphazard. A more in depth look into the subject would turn up sources that may not include "pizza cheese" in the search at all but would benefit the article and the readers' understanding of the subject. Likewise a brief history of how cheese production has changed over the decades might also be called for. Similarly a mention of how WWII impacted the boom of frozen foods including pizza. There is some fascinating history here if the article is allowed to develop. Insomesia (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That's not the point and I hope you realize that. Sources would lead to a good article on which types of non-manufactured-for-pizza-use cheeses are used. the history of their use and why some are chosen, by whom, and their perceived benefits. If there were a list component that may make sense but it takes looking at the available sources on the subject to see where the content leads.
  • Oppose Per WP:CONCEPTDAB, "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page.". That's the situation we have here and so the current structure is appropriate. Warden (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No, that is definitely not the situation we have. I can understand why you might think the wording of that guideline accommodates this situation, but it does not. Pizza cheese can mean natural cheese that is used on pizza, processed cheese that was originally made for pizza, or cheese that isn't really cheese at all. "Cheese used for pizza" is not really a concept or type of anything. Similarly, "bread used for sandwiches", "fruits used for smoothies", or any other number of "x used for y" subjects that you could conceivably write about are not concepts.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think it is valuable to have cheese-related information specific to pizzas in one place and that the article demonstrates a specific relevance. On the other hand, we would have an inclination to merge since the bulk of the article is on "Varieties and types." This section could be condensed and more information could be added on the preferences in pizza cheese in different countries and historical time periods - the business of pizza cheese, its health impact, how it's distributed and marketed, and so on. Corporate 22:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • We already have an article where we can "have cheese-related information specific to pizzas in one place" and that is the article on pizza. At this point, as there is no unifying concept of pizza cheese, we can only ever have a confused article trying to cover multiple distinct subjects as one subject. What we have is "people try to make cheese specifically for use on pizza", which is true of basically any ingredient in a popular dish, such as sandwich bread.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Alternative: Suggest condensing and merging with Pizza#cheese. Since Pizza has not surpassed WP:LENGTH and already has a section on pizza cheese, there was never a need to create a separate article. Readers would still have a single place to learn about cheese specifically for pizza. Corporate 00:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that would easily be undue. There is a good article here with a bit of work, striking everything to condense into a few sentences wouldn't be helping inform on this subject. Insomesia (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Save for the material added by Corporate and Gzuufy, every significant piece of information is already merged to some other article and I don't think it would be terribly difficult to merge the recently-added material on individual cheeses to their respective articles with some modification to the tone. At the very least we could have the pizza article including a summary of the information about pizza cheeses that we have in other articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Just because someone has preemptively merged content away to other articles doesn't mean that was warranted or the best solution for what to do here. I'm stating flat out that there is still a good article possible here and presently the article has gaps of information. And sources exist to meet that need. I am not sure what would be best for the main pizza article but the very narrow focus being presently show on this article does not diminish the fact that this is not only a notable subject but that there remains, despite the variety of articles this one could be split off into, hope for this to be a good article on this subject. The duress isn't fostering a climate to allow good collaborative editing and a more organic growth of this article. It needs the right editor(s) to come along, research sources and distill that knowledge. We have a start but there remains more work to be done. Insomesia (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this article would fit well under Pizza#cheese, which is quite a bit longer than a few sentences. Since cheese is one of the most important components of the pizza, it's not an undue weight problem for us to spend time talking about it. The content I added would go well under a new Pizza#Production and business section to get it started. And if the Pizza#cheese section does grow to a size that is unmanageable, at that time we can create a separate article under WP:LENGTH. I don't think we should keep Pizza cheese as a separate article under the expectation that it will eventually grow. When/if it does grow, we can move it back. There are a great number of things we could create whole articles on, but we only do so after the subject has been covered in enough depth to warrant it. Corporate 13:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually I think the focus presently is misplaced. We speak as though only cheese that is made for pizza use is actually used. In fact high-end pizzas tend to shy away from these processed food products and focus on more pure cheese and how to use them. We presently are giving ample coverage to corporate mass market pizza production while generally giving a pass to gourmet and handmade pizza enterprizes that specifically avoid cheese hybrids. Cook's County I know had an entire section devoted on their show to various cheeses used on pizzas and how they contrasted. I'm not sure if that detail would be best for the article but I do believe other sources - and they are many many food preparation shows and books - also cover this subject. Insomesia (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. While there are cheeses made specifically for pizza and a wealth of study on how to optimize it for mass production, the article is really about an application or use-case of cheese. How has cheese been studied, used and consumed on pizzas as it were. Right now the article is too focused on the cheese itself, which lends itself to a merge with other cheese articles. I don't expect any consensus to emerge on such a "yes/no" proposal, because what is needed is a large number of editorial judgements to find what goes on which article and what needs to be fixed - where we can use summary style with a "see main article," etc. I have made some edits along these lines boldly - using a summary style on the Pizza#cheese article. Corporate 13:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons stated above and long-time discussions. Lguipontes (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I have spent some time refining the article. It is now far more focused on how cheese is used on pizza, rather than describing the cheeses themselves. I think this makes the oppose vote more compelling, because a lot of redundancy of content that really belong in other cheese articles has been trimmed and more information specifically relevant to pizza cheese has been added. Cheers! Corporate 17:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    Ugh, no, you haven't strengthened the oppose vote. Basically you got us back to where we were when the merge discussion was initiated, except with a little more polish. The fact is that "cheese used on pizza" is not an academic subject unto itself. What we have in this article currently is either "what cheese people put on pizza" or "how they make cheese for pizza", which are both much more suited for the article on pizza, except for material that would be excessive there. For instance, we have an article on Provel cheese, which is a product that mostly pertains to St. Louis-style pizza and that style of pizza also has an article where Provel is mentioned. There is no need for yet another article to go into detail on that subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    "The fact is that "cheese used on pizza" is not an academic subject unto itself." - According to who? - jc37 18:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Critique To Corporate Minion, This article still reads like an advertisement for corporate, business, and particularly, Provel cheese, as well as "The world's largest manufacturer of pizza cheese, Leprino Foods Company...." Wikipedia is not supposed to be about advertising. As an editor, I may be more tolerant of the no-advertising policy than I should be (except against obvious spam), to try to find common ground and work with, instead of against other editors. Cited sentences I wrote were deleted overnight about what pizzeria cheese blends were popular in what U.S. areas, as well as the use of locally-available cheeses mixed in creative fashions, yet information that Provel cheese is used in the St Louis area remains (seems biased). Devil's Advocate touched on this as well. Explain: Provel cheese's visible label in the article image says it is a mix of Provolone, Swiss, and Cheddar (I may have order wrong, and nutritional label isn't visible anyway), so information about geographic popularity of mixes of other long-established cheeses should probably not be deleted if that remains. It may be that area-specific information should not be included in the article at all. On the other hand, if some is allowed to remain, it is arbitrary to delete others, particularly ones that are cited. Readers may desire to know that on the West and East Coasts of the U.S., Provolone and Mozzarella is a popular pizzeria blend, and that Mozzarella and Cheddar is popular in East Coast and Southern pizzerias, particularly if they're wondering what that special cheese is the local pizzeria uses, a place that likely only divulges "Mozzarella" upon query due to competitive issues. I would have been highly appreciative of Correll's information when I was younger and first starting out on my prior pizza-baking hobby, though there may be many other reasons why readers may be interested in such issues. Pizza cheese seems like the most specific place to discuss geographic popularity of pizza cheese blends. Cheers! Gzuufy (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
You have an interesting point, but that would that not be better suited in the pizza in the United States article? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, you could have exactly one sentence to sum up the use of different cheese blends. I don't think there is any need to go into significant detail on such blends, unless they are relevant to a specific style of pizza as is the case with Provel.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the extensive amount of research that has been done to create the ideal pizza cheese is validation that it is a topic of academic pursuit. Cheeses specifically manufactured for pizza are "pizza cheese" while other cheeses may be "cheese that happens to be used on pizza," so these ideologies are both correct in different circumstances. I was selective in geographical popularity, because St-Lous-style is very specific, while saying that one specific cheese is popular on both coasts is not very informative. Reading the comment, I'm wondering if mentioning both coasts for a specific cheese was an error if these were intended to refer to only one coast-per-cheese, in which case it should be restored and corrected.
In any case, I think intelligent discussion on these issues can lead to a series of compromises and editorial judgements. Corporate 00:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The key in a merge discussion is whether it is an academic topic unto itself, as in, not inherently connected to another topic. In this case it is even more complicated as the term "pizza cheese" can refer to a lot of different things that are distinct subjects. Articles should be relatively easy to define in terms of scope. Here that is not the case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
In the issue of pizza cheese and multiple definitions or meanings there's actually a similarity to Proofing (baking technique) where the term proofing has been defined with at least three different and specific meanings, and somewhat differently compared to the phrase "pizza cheese", the divergent meanings of "proofing" do not overlap at all. In my studies of that subject, it seems to be based upon markets, professional bakers use one definition, and two different home market usages occur with completely different meanings, neither of which overlap with the professional one. This is not ideal from the standpoint of reading and understanding recipes or talking to other folks who are from different backgrounds: until you have the key it's hard to unlock the door of understanding. RE East Coast and West Coast pizzerias using Mozzarella and Provolone, it's all right there on the Correll page I cited. You can open the archive page and search and highlight as easy as I can. In the pizza cheese article, I was careful to not "copy and paste", but to actually rewrite in a way that should not have violated any of Correll's copyrights, but what was written was very close to what Correll wrote, as close as I could make it in some instances. These kinds of hints can be helpful to some folks, if anything to give them a place where they may begin their combinations of cheeses, if they're trying to clone their favorite pizzeria pizza at home, for instance. According to the page Jeremy referred to, the only cheeses used in U.S. pizzerias are Mozzarella and Provel! In reality, with 3-to-5 different primary pizza cheeses available, the combinations run into rather large numbers, before taking account of proportioning. Anything that can reduce those larger number of possibilities to a more manageable number of possibilities would, I'd feel, be helpful to others in a general way, which is why I felt Correll's information was worthy of inclusion. Gzuufy (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The Blue Ocean Strategy and similar lines of thinking have spurred marketing communities to constantly create new categories and concepts that are not particularly distinguishable, but neither are they entirely meaningless. I think a large number of articles on marketing topics also require merges, but don't present us with obvious choices.
I hesitantly re-incorporated some information about the popularity of different cheese varieties in different US regions. I think it would be equally valid to move this to Pizzas in the US per the suggestion above and I noticed the source is somewhat wishy washy, but I don't see it is as particularly problematic.
Any other objections we can address? Corporate 02:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The table looks good! I also appreciate the inclusion of the phrase whole milk. One issue I have with the Pizza in the U.S. article is that it appears hard to find. ( My pizza days are over, protein allergy to dairy, so I'm not really looking for pizza related information, which may be why I didn't know about it. ) For example, it's not in the 'series on pizza' box, or linked anywhere on Pizza cheese, I wasn't aware of the page until Jeremy pointed to it, but then I also wasn't looking for it. A disambiguation page may fix that, but I've already stated my preference that this page remain. The moment a disambiguation page is placed, search engine rankings will probably fall, and this page is highly visible as of a couple of days ago. My vote is just one, lots of others get to vote as well! There are some cheese capitalization issues in this article right now. Some of the cheeses are supposed to be capitalized, others not. Gzuufy (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

American pizza is noway confined to mozzarella and provel (Which I have never even seen in the Northeastern United States (Actually suggesting it for pizza might get you killed in parts of the North End in Boston or of New York city). Papa Ginos uses a mixture of Mozzarella, cheddar and provolone on their pizzas, While Bertucci's uses Buffalo mozzarella, ricotta and others on their pizzas. Lets not forget barbeque pizza that often uses Monterey Jack and cheddar. The Pizza in the United States article needs work and this is something that can go into it as well. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool - Pizza#cheese is now in summary style; there is no longer a problematic degree of overlap with general cheese information in this article and the article itself has been substantially improved. I'm going to boldly claim the problem is basically resolved and see if someone shoots me down on that claim. One remaining item to resolve is the amount of pizza cheese information on the other cheese articles that is redundant with this one. While this information is redundant, I am also not sure it is misplaced. It is also relevant on a Mozzarella article to talk about how it is used on pizza. Summary style doesn't make sense here. Any ideas on the best approach here? Corporate 12:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem isn't resolved at all. Material being present elsewhere wasn't the problem, but the fact that there is no good evidence of "pizza cheese" being a clearly-defined subject that is sufficiently independent of other subjects to merit an article. It isn't a specific or general type of cheese, but is instead just a term people use for cheese they put on a pizza. Such situations merit a disambiguation page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pizza_cheese/Archive_1&oldid=1137087543"