Talk:Hong dou tang

Shiratamas

What are shiratamas? Badagnani 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It refers to shiratama (白玉), which is dango and be made from glutinous rice flour. But does the plural form need? --Nightshadow28 15:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Filled mochi?

Are the mochi pieces filled, as in the filled balls of tangyuan? Badagnani 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No. The dumpling or the mochi used for oshiruko is not filled with sweet bean paste. --Nightshadow28 15:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

When glutinous rice flour dumplings are used, are they round (spherical), like those of tangyuan? Badagnani 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Box

Box needs romanization for Japanese name(s). Badagnani 02:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Box still needs romanization for Japanese name(s). Badagnani 04:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Name

I thought 紅豆湯 is the more common chinese name for this. Doesnt 紅豆粥 usually have other beans or rice in them? And how to add 紅豆沙 on the template? I think it belongs on here too.Ian Kiu 04:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're exactly right. Would both be considered "red bean soup," using the English name, though? The use of rice should be mentioned in the article. But isn't 湯 is a very clear soup, not a tong sui, right? Badagnani 04:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

紅豆湯 is already there, under "alternate name." Badagnani 04:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

For anyone curious there is no rice in "red bean congee". At least I personally have never seen it. Benjwong 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

お汁粉

Why was the first character of お汁粉 (the honorific "o," which is part of the name) just removed without comment? Badagnani 20:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the guys at WP:JPN, because it's a colloquial usage. It's usage is still noted in the body of the article, by the way. Bradford44 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ochazuke

OK, I'd like your input on the title of this article, then: Ochazuke. I proposed moving it to "Chazuke," as we don't have an article entitled O-sake. Badagnani 00:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments Bagdanani wishes addressed

These were removed from the body of the article. They were commented out, and I'm moving them here so they can actually be addressed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

China

If it's called "red bean congee," does it have rice in it? This should be mentioned.

What is sliced sugar?

Vietnam

Need name of the red bean soup there.

Australia I live in Sydney and I have never been given red bean soup as a complimentary dessert. Perhaps that is because I am not Chinese - I think that is only partly the answer. I don't think it is common practice. I am given a bittermelon jelly dessert at one restaurant I frequent. Therefore I have added the word "sometimes" to this part of the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.222.208 (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Korean sources

Please add Korean names to the books, I googled the authors, but didn't find the books listed in the article. Kf8 (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Split proposal

I propose that this article be splitted into hóngdòutāng, shiruko, and patjuk.

• Chinese hóngdòutāng (红豆汤) is soup, while Japanese shiruko (汁粉) and Korean patjuk (팥죽) are porridge.
• Chinese hóngdòutāng and Japanese shiruko/zenzai are sweet, while Korean patjuk by default is not sweet and is boiled with rice (or noodles, in which case the name changes to pat-kal-guksu). Sweet variety is called danpatjuk ("sweet patjuk").
• There are at least three Japanese articles related to this English article azukigayu (ja:小豆粥), shiruko (ja:汁粉), and zenzai (ja:ぜんざい).
  • This article redirects to azukigayu, which features an image of Korean patjuk, so I guess they are similar food. They also share the Chinese character "粥", which means "porridge". Both not sweet, both boiled with rice.
  • Korean danpatjuk and Japanese shiruko/zenzai are also similar. They are sweet desserts like Chinese hóngdòutāng. (There seem to be confusion even among the Japanese when distinguishing shiruko and zenzai, due to the regional (East-West) differences in both the food and the food names.)

--MaeveCosgrave (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What's the current arrangement of Wikidata items? Deryck C. 12:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: There are shiruko (Q700643) and zenzai (Q11270244). The latter has only Japanese zenzai article linked to it.

We don't make decisions on enwiki based on what Wikidata is doing. They are there to help us, and their data structure should be modified based on how the various wikis have things set up, not the other way around. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

There is also patjuk (Q20897543). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep this article as is. If respective articles are created, link them with Wikilink or Template:Main article and if necessary, summarize the current description. That is the common practice in Wikipedia.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: I think a split is a bad idea. One thing that en:WP should be doing is explaining the connections between things: in this case all of the referents (at least one each Chinese and Korean, and two Japanese) are actually basically the same "stuff" -- what you get by boiling and squashing the beans (variously aduki etc) and making them into a sweet slurp (which I (BrE) at least could not call "porridge"). Actually I think the article needs reconstructing so there is a general description of this commonality, followed by separate sections on the three national versions. To go in the opposite direction means that I might run across a reference to patjuk, wonder what it was, and read the (entirely separate!) article on the Korean version without realising that it refers to (a variant of) shiruko. (I happen to speak Japanese, because I live in Japan. Incidentally I find all this "Japanese people like this...", "Koreans do this that in the winter..." very patronising; liking shiruko has essentially nothing to do with nationality, everything to do with where you live.) Imaginatorium (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: Shiruko may be considered (a variant of) patjuk (more specifically, a variant of danpatjuk) but is patjuk considered a variant of shiruko? I'm a bit confused because there is an article named azukigayu in Japanese Wikipedia, which seems to referring to a dish similar to patjuk. What is the relation between shiruko and azukigayu? --MaeveCosgrave (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Support split / Different suggestion There are separate articles which are related through the "See also" section and the "infobox food" template's "similar dishes". Perhaps we can split the articles into Red bean soup, Red bean porridge, and Sweet red bean porridge to be neutral and cover patjuk and azukigayu together, and danpatjuk and shiruko together. I saw Chinese people referring to patjuk as hóngdòuzhōu. And there is also a Chinese version of hóngdòuzhōu, which is quite similar to patjuk. Therefore Red bean soup can cover hóngdòutāng, Red bean porridge can cover patjuk, azukigayu, and hóngdòuzhōu, and Sweet red bean porridge can cover danpatjuk, shiruko, and zenzai. --Ityoppyawit (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you suggest what proportion of native English speakers would have any idea (at all!) of what these three topics are from the titles? Or, perhaps having been presented with a dish somewhere in East Asia, would know which to look at to understand what they had just eaten? Imaginatorium (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Porridge is just a type of thick soup, so we're splitting hairs here. I think having one article with different sections for each variation will be sufficient. If any of those sections gets large enough to be a separate article, we can split it off at that point. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep as is (1st choice) or create subtopic articles and retain broad-concept article (2nd choice). I can see subtopic articles being better for Wikidata purposes, but this article isn't really long enough to be split. Deryck C. 18:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Japanese New Year Delicacy?

I am not sure if this is the same stuff I had at more than one Japanese restaurant for dessert but I think it is and believe it is winter/new year's thing. 50.230.251.244 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

No citation

You are the one breaking the rules. 27.3.1.88 (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Saintstephen000 27.3.1.88 (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)