Talk:Broth

message: Broth?
In Scotland and most of the rest of UK Broth is a thick chunky soup full of nourishment. This article does not reflect that usage at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.1.81 (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scottish broth

message: Wikipedia is not a cookbook.  That is what Wikibooks is for.  In addition, Mr. Brown's recipes are copyright to him (for those in his cookbooks) or to Television Food Network (for those on his show,) so we can't publish them here.
I will try to expand the stub, but if anyone wants to get to it before me, broth has an interesting cultural and etymological history as a food and as medicine; contemporary prepared varieties and their various quality should also provide some good material. VermillionBird 00:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recipes (removed) 

message: User:64.194.44.220 seems intent on starting up some kind of edit war here.  Having found flavour and flavorful in the article I decided to make spelling consistant.  I added a u to flavorful.  
User:64.194.44.220 decided then to delete both us instead commenting "No need for the unnecessary u's that only make the article unnecessarily longer."  God forbid that this stub be an extra two letters long.  I reverted this suggesting that he come up with a better reason.
And what was his better reason "Revert: Is shorter and agrees with the flavor article."  These are two reasons one better and one the same.  Okay, good work, you've found a better reason, User:64.194.44.220, but can you do better still?
The length of the word has nothing to do with it.  Neither has agreement with other articles. We have an article Metric metersticks nobody is jump up and down about the fact that the spelling disagrees with the Metre article.  Spelling is to be consistant within but not necessarily between articles.  I suggest User:64.194.44.220 read Wikipedia:Manual of Style.  Jimp 20Dec05
:It's interesting that the first incarnation of the word in the article was "flavorful." Someone added the word "flavour," and you decided to make "flavorful" consistent with the later addition. Confiteordeo 04:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is interesting, yes.  I never looked that far into the article's history.  What's more interesting is that 64.194.44.220 completely missed this point.  If he had brought it up, what could I do but graciously accept defeat?  It doesn't matter either way now becuase the words are gone. Jimp 06:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: What are the health benefits of broth?  What are its medicinal uses?  The Jade Knight 02:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutritional value? 

message: Broth as used in microbiology also denotes aliquid media for the growth of a culture  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.114.31 (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Broth in microbiology

message: The photo currently on the page doesn't look like any broth I've ever seen. It appears to be Chinese chicken noodle soup. --Ef80 (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: ""Industrially produced bouillon cubes were commercialized by Maggi in 1908 and by Oxo in 1910"" 
Nonsense! "Liebig" did that since about 1870 based on Uruguay/Argentinian Beef!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.217.241 (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liebig  

message: Bouillon is broth.  There's little more in the Bouillon article than that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I have created a template for the "Stock versus broth" section like the "Shrimp versus prawn" section in those articles. This is so the content appears identically in both articles.
It now contains the content from both stock and broth articles. There may be some redundancies that need sorting out. 
It can be edited at Template:Stock versus broth.
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stock versus broth template 

message: I'm new and not comfortable editing yet, so thought I'd comment here.
There's a section in this article (called Scientific evidence) that discusses the alleged health benefits of "bone broth" but it doesn't actually say that "bone broth" is just another name some companies recently started using to market their stock at inflated prices. This article says that "bone broth" is intended to mean stock made with an extra long cooking time, but their source is Marco Canora, who sells the product (at inflated prices) and thus has a motive to promote some actual distinction between stock and "bone broth." 
I think the section discussing so-called "bone broth" should be introduced by a note that it's actually just talking about stock. Or at least a definition of "bone broth" and a note that this term only recently started being used.Sagavera (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the bone broth redirect was, in clear contravention of previously discussed consensus, turned back into an article that plainly stated it's really just stock and then continued on as blatant advertisement, I reorganized this material to regather the redirect to stock (food) and moved the material about the overinflated health claims from here to that article. This lead to some further reorganization, though as always the line between stock and broth is not particularly clear or firm. oknazevad (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bone Broth" 

message: I merged this page to Stock (food) because they are about the same subject, as the articles themselves make clear. This is the merged version.  reverted the merger as "undiscussed", but per WP:MERGEINIT, discussion is not a prerequisite for a merger. Oknazevad, why do you disagree with the merger on the merits?  Sandstein  22:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they are not the same subject. The section on stock vs broth makes it clear that some consider the line fuzzy, and in many applications they are interchangeable, but overall chefs and other food experts consider them separate. Broth, for example, is typically more seasoned and salted, is principally made from meat with some bones still attached, and is considered a finished product in its own right, whereas stock is made principally from the bones with only incidental meat, is less seasoned, and is meant for use as an ingredient in other dishes. This is covered in the second paragraph of that section. Dismissing that because of the first paragraph is a poor reading of the section and misses the point of it. oknazevad (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Oknazevad: But these supposed distinctions can still be covered in a merged article. If stock and broth are the same in all other respects, what‘s the point in keeping two separate articles with largely the same content?  Sandstein  04:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Different foodstuffs with different ingredients and different preparation methods don't belong in the same article. The section is to address the common misconception that they are the same. oknazevad (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger to [[Stock (food)]] 

message: I cannot find information if meat or fish is an essential ingredient of broth? If so, then what is vegetable broth?
For example (at least to me) vegetable butter is not butter, it is margarine. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetable broth 

message: we have a red link Meat stock. Is it a synonym? Also pending :Wikidata:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q67860017 Estopedist1 (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meat stock and problem in Wikidata 

message: The redirect Suimono has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  BDD (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Suimono]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]