Talk:South Australian food and drink

message: Blatant POV and redirected twice. But is there a case here for a seperate article if the POV is removed ? I'd welcome an informed discussion. Pedro |  Chat   11:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've kicked out some POV but the article needs substantial changes still. Pedro |  Chat   12:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: I've added the merge tag to alert other editors to the need to debate the usefulness or otherwise of this article. Pedro |  Chat   12:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you are new to Wikipedia, and this is a good thing. Anyone is welcome here if they are civil and follow the guidelines. I would recommend you read WP:OWN - just because you created the article you don't own it. There is no question that food / drink of South Australia is important. The problem comes that there is already a substantial article on Australian Cuisine. This article was very POV and still looks like an advert at the bottom. Let's take an example - there is an article on English Cuisine but not one on cusine of Hampshire. Would it not be better (and get the facts seen by more people) to have a section within the main article detaliling the content here?Pedro |  Chat   12:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest that you consider the content of the respective articles- which is quite different. One article is describing cuisine; the other is providing information regarding the industry of a State. Food and beverage produc
tion is a major South Australian industry- I suggest that if you took a poll of South Australians, they would agree with that assertion. Let's see if there are any other contributions to this debate.Fitzpatrickjm 13:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree more input is needed. However if this is to do with the industry of South Australia why not merge it into South_Australia#Economy instead ? The fundamental issue here is justifying why a whole seperate article is needed, no that the information is without value. Pedro |  Chat   13:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, if that is the case then surely the article should be called "South Australia food and drink industry" ??? Pedro |  Chat   13:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Blimey - I wish I hadn't followed the pie floater link!! In all seriousness I suppose it could be a "see also" from the economy link, but if the original author is correct in his assertation of the importance of food and drink to industry then it may as well just be that section in South Australia. Some citation wouldn't go amiss either. I guess we await more input but i really can't see enough here to justify a full article at present. Pedro |  Chat   15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go along with everything in the comment above, jimfbleak 16:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about some comments from the Southern Hemisphere?Fitzpatrickjm 14:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Comments from the Southern Hemisphere) The article as it stands is mostly about industry, so might be renamed, but it's a mixture of primary (farming), secondary (manufacturing), tertiary (restaurants and service), container recycling, education and cuisine, without telling a clear story. The See also list is mostly links that are already in the text, so is not needed. The article uses terms that would (e.g broadacre) not be familiar to a global audience, and assumes quite a bit of background knowledge about the state. It does not distinguish between major commercial activities and boutique small producers, or the relationships between them. --Scott Davis Talk 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Tag 

message: This is a very low traffic talk page. There seems to be consensus for the merge out of the limited activity here. User:Fitzpatrickjm has undone it, and I have to say you are showing serious ownership issues. I'm not going to start reverting, but can we at least try and get this clearcut. Per the above I support the merge and redirect. Pedro |  Chat   09:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge has consent. The only objection is from the creator of the article. I have left an explanation of the situation on the creator's talk page giving advice to seek assistance and broader consensus for a revert, and have restored the redirect. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on what I have read here, the merge makes sense to me.  The lone objector has serious ownership issues with several articles.  If nobody else objects, the merge should be implemented. -- But|seriously|folks  22:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see my comment of 29 May 2007 as supporting a merge, so the claim that Fitzpatrickjm is the only objector might be technically true, but I at least expressed reservations about a merge. --Scott Davis Talk 12:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This article scope was wider than "cuisine", covering industry and economics as well. The merged "Cuisine of Australia" is wildly out of kilter with this level of detail about only one state, and would be way too long if it had this detail from every state, as well as having the focus moved away from the title. --Scott Davis Talk 12:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undone Merge 

message: I would suggest making a new page called "food and drink industry of Australia" to cover the broader aspect of this article.
The facts are that this article deals with the specific companies that make food in SA (South Australia),not the cuisine of SA. This article sould not be retained but instead merged into the above mentioned possible artice. This is just an idea so it would be good to hear some feedback. 122.104.76.104 (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge into a new article