Category talk:Historical foods

message: the scope of this category is presumably the cuisines and foods of specific times in the past. It isn't useful for it to cover all foods with a long history, because that would be far too broad a category -- it would have to include bread, sausages, grilled meat, poached fish, soup, cheese, sorbet, beer, wine, etc. etc. etc. It also isn't useful for it to cover raw foodstuffs. Similarly, it isn't useful for it to cover cuisines with a long history, because most cuisines arguably have long histories.
Looking at the pages in this category in that light, many of them don't seem to belong, and I propose to remove this category from them:
* Baked beans
* Calabash
* Chinese cuisine
* Chinese regional cuisine
* Cuisine of the Mid-Atlantic states
* Eggs Beauregard
* Ganchaoniuhe
* Ancient grains
* Grits
* Jellied eels
* Peasant foods
* Petits Propos Culinaires
* Ribollita
* List of sausages
* Zambian cuisine
Comments? --Macrakis (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. To make some sense and to be useful, this category should cover foods that were once eaten (and notable) but are not now. Andrew Dalby 16:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help to give people a clue that this isn't a cat for foods that have been eaten for a long time but instead for foods that were once eaten commonly but no longer are. —valereee (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this as well. Spudlace (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this category from the above articles and a few more. --Macrakis (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  and  If you only add foods once eaten, that's not a true indication of "historical" foods.  There are a number of YouTube channels that delve into food history.  Lots of foods that we know and love today date back centuries and have gone through many changes.  Lasagna, for example, goes back to the 14th century and is vastly different than it's descents.  That would make it a historical food.  Fries also date back centuries.  As you can see, many foods enjoyed today are historical.  We can't just say food "no longer eaten."  Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , how about 'or are no longer eaten in their original form', so as to include foods like that? —valereee (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  This way you're not excluding foods still eaten today.  Lasagna, for example, would never be included if we went by your original logic.  The reason a lot of foods are no longer eaten in their original form is because of discoveries and the advancement of food in the way the individual ingredients are produced or the items used are different.  The ingredients in the original lasagna are not the same.  So saying "no longer eaten in their original form" doesn't discriminate.  There are lots of food that are "no longer eaten" that aren't historical.  So "no longer eaten" isn't a good gauge for historical food.  You have to look at the history.  Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Every food has a history, and most foods change over time. So almost every food would have to be considered a "historical food" by this logic. The category becomes vacuous and useless if every food is included. --Macrakis (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , maybe the food needs a standalone for its original/historical version? Dillegrout is a truly historical food that, if I were making it today (which I did for the photo) I would call a type of cream of chicken soup. —valereee (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope