Talk:Plate lunch

message: Does "plate" describe "lunch" or does "lunch" describe "plate"? "Plate lunch" seems to mean "lunch on a plate", whereas "lunch plate" seems to mean "a plate of lunch". Which is a better description? I just want to clarify so that I can tweak the Hawaiian term if necessary. —Kal (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lunch on a plate. I don't really understand why we are using Hawaiian in this article.  I mean, you can find the term "plate lunch" in any Hawaiian dictionary, but so is the word for computer.  Please understand, it doesn't bother me to include it, I just don't think the Hawaiian term is in use. Or is it? Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: roughly equivalent to a Southern U.S. meat-and-threes plate
:This was added by an anon in 2005 and frankly, I don't see the equivalence.  Nor have I been able to find a ref. The only thing I see in common between the two is that both offer meat on a plate.  I'm not convinced.  I suggest removal. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I figured out why it was added.  Apparently the "meat-and-threes plate" is also known as a plate lunch.  I was unaware of this.  This complicates the matter somewhat and demands some kind of disambiguation. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meat and threes 

message: If you're going to distinguish the 'hanbag' with gravy (which is very popular in Japan - especially on kids' menus; the closest thing in genuine US cuisine is the Salisbury Steak [which you hardly see these days outside of maybe some retro buffets]) as being a purely American contribution to the plate lunch, why describe chicken katsu as being natively Japanese?  Even on the 'katsu' article here on wikipedia, it explains that this dish is not natively Japanese, and that 'katsu' comes from the English word "cutlet," or "cuts," for short.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.109.230 (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamburger patty (hanbag) non-Japanese in origin, but chicken katsu not? 

message: No one ever calls it by the Hawaiian name. Therefore I don't think that should be in the lead, as it just confuses matters. Put it in a footnote only, if it has to be in the article at all. We don't put the Hawaiian word for every article concerning Hawaii, unless it's commonly used, so I'm not sure why this popped up here to muddy the waters. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawaiian name 

message: The photo in the lede isn't really accurate because it doesn't have a scoop of macaroni salad. Need to use a photo that's accurate. There's one in the gallery at the bottom; it's rather dark but at least it's what it should be. If no other option, the two photos should be swapped. Softlavender (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo in lede isn't accurate 

message: I don't have time to edit it at the moment (just to gripe about it), but "plate lunch" is used often in the South, and NOT to indicate some sort of Asian-food experience. For the article to start off defining it as Hawaiian is misleading, though obviously that is one kind of "plate lunch." --Tbanderson (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I grew up in the South (lived there 29 years) and have now lived in Hawaii for the past 12 years, and "plate lunch" is much more definitely Hawaiian than any other place or region. "Plate lunch" can be used generically all over the U.S., but only in Hawaii does it have a very specific meaning and is much much much more widely used -- it's used in every restaurant, not just casual diners and cafes. Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is misleading 

message: Ferretsrock, as I explained on your talk page, you need to discuss on this Talk page and establish consensus before restoring edits you made which have been reverted. As I also linked on your talk page, per WP:BRD, the person changing the article has the burden to make their case; until that time the status quo is maintained. Again, I strongly encourage you to follow Wikipedia policies and avoid edit-warring in order to avoid being blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: I changed this article at the top because it said "A plate lunch is a quintessentially Hawaiian meal", and didn't understand what "quintessentially" meant. And I am VERY smart. Graduated with honors, 4.0 GPA and such. And I'm saying this as a common, everyday person, being smart (not trying at all to boast here, I'm trying to prove a point), I still didn't understand what quintessential meant. I went and I conducted a survey to ask people if they knew what "quintessential" meant, and 89% of the people did not know what it meant. And that was a survey conducted on a complete variety of random everyday people just like you and I.
Therefore, I found it better for the article to be changed after I looked up the definition and changed it to something that a broader spectrum of everyday Wikipedia readers could understand: I changed it to this instead:
"A plate lunch is essentially known as a typical Hawaiian meal", because that's what it is! It's a typical Hawaiian meal served on a plate. Very easy to read, understand, everyone can understand it, not just the 11% of everyday people that knew what "quintessential" meant. Therefore, I don't think there was any harm done....But for some reason I was reverted twice for making this simple change. I explained why it was constructive editing for the article, but there wasn't even a reason for why it was changed back to the very unknown, confusing word "quintessential".
Another thing is that there were issues with quotes in this article. I'm a grammar freak and noticed that there were a lot of things wrong with the quotes here, with capitalization issues and run-on sentences and so on and so forth, so I went and read the entire article that was cited on this Wiki page, in that particular part of the page where a quote was laid out. I noticed that it was not correctly placed in the Wiki page so I edited it and my edit was reverted!! That's something I don't understand as well, about why the hell that was reverted! I place a direct quote in the article with correct grammar and punctuation and such and it gets reverted to the non-grammatically correct version, saying that I can't "mess with quotes", when I didn't mess with the quote! I went to the article and put it EXACTLY as it was said in the article! That's why they call it a direct quote, right?
Anyway, now I'm being accused of edit-warring, when there's no way in hell that I would want to willingly do that. I try to make honest, constructive, FAIR edits to this article and get it changed back continuously and then what. What the hell am I supposed to do then? For crying out loud......
Ferretsrock (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ferretsrock, you're really going to have to discuss each of your requested edits one at a time, instead of all in one post, I think. Otherwise, the discussion becomes too unwieldy. Most of your edits that I reverted or re-worded were non-grammatical, overly wordy, and/or insufficiently specific or accurate. If you want to make a list of them (with numbers, if that helps), that might be the easiest way to approach this matter. And "quintessential" or "quintessentially" is a very common word; one form or another occurs 8,000 times in Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to have choice of words chosen to fit a broader range of Wikipedia readers to understand.