Talk:Ratatouille

Including a recipe

Transwikying text

---

Though I am sure I will speak in a deep void, I will just state that it is utterly ridiculous to remove recipees from encyclopedia; And it is not because there is a book somewhere to hold these recipees, that they should disappear from here. You people probably only eat plastic steaks and aspartam coca cola if you are not able to realise that food in part of culture in some countries, and that understanding how people eat, how they prepare food, what they eat is cultural, not just a plain stupid recipee to hide in a book. Do not expect to ever understand some cultures, such as the french one in doing so.

Anthère0 11:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we can discuss the dish itself here (not a straight recipe), and its cultural origins &/c and have the recipe at Wikibooks...? Dysprosia 11:42, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)hieveryone

---

Dear english speaking people. The recipee that was previously in that page has unfortunately been removed, due to the belief it was not encyclopedic. I am sure you will miss the information it could have provided. As a reminder, it is a french dish, typical of provencal cuisine. The previous great recipee had been an original one, carefully reported by two french women and two other french speaking people. Unfortunately, the information has now moved to an unknown dark place, and the link to that place not preserved.

Fortunately for you, french people do think of you. We think you are important, and your desire to know more about our dishes is important to us. We can still access that great recipee here w:fr:Ratatouille. It is in french, but a google translation might help you. Do dare asking if needed :-) We will be delighted to help you.

Thanks for your attention.

I've read the article that was here before it was transwikied to wikibooks[1], and in my opinion it was just a recipe. There was no information that would be considered encyclopedic, ie. why the dish was culturally significant, or any history of the dish. For the record, I would have performed the exact same procedure that Karen did had I gotten here first, as I have in the past for similar articles.

in short, you would have lost the information contained in the article, because you would have not put a link to the recipee.

Additionally, in my opinion, the 'pedia is much improved because of the changes that have occured after the recipe was moved, as now there is an article about Ratatouille, explaining to me, someone who knows nothing about french cuisine, why this dish is important, with a link to a recipe if I want to learn more. Furthermore, no links to the page were deleted, people would go to some page that linked Ratatouille and see a red "Empty Link" there. If the article had been deleted, someone would eventually write an article about it to fill that gap. Gentgeen 08:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No links were deleted *because* I complained ! If the article had been deleted, then another newbie would have made the recipee again, then you would have deleted the recipee, then a third newbie would have made a third recipee, then you would have deleted it a third time ????W What do we care that people just make 3 times the same job ?

Let's see, *I* consider that all recipees should stay in the encyclopedia; You consider all these articles should be deleted, with no link preserved if the article is not interesting to your opinion. I propose a compromise that at least insure that links are preserved, as well as basic information, and international links. You do not appear to agree with this, since you suggest this article deletion was ok. So, you refuse the compromise I suggest and will go on deleting any article that do not fit *your* definition of what something interesting is ? I am the one proposing the compromise, and I believe you are just rejecting my opinion. If no compromise is acceptable for you, and french articles just go on been summaraly deleted, I will restore then, and that is just all there is to say about it. When you feel this is abuse from me, then I hope you will consider that someone else opinion has interest and we will reach a compromise. Thanks.

Ant, I find offensive your continued suggestion of discrimination by all the editors involved in moving recipes. French recipes were NOT singled out for special deletion, they were just next on the list to move. Albanian, American, Australian, British, Chinese, Vegetarian, Vegan, and some Italian and Mexican dishes were moved before the French recipes. French was just next on the list for moving. As this is the longest and most vocal objection we've had so far, I'd suggest you are in the minority on this subject.

no, this is not true. Many people expressed themselves on the talk for deletion list. And several on the mailing list as well. I do not think I am a minority in saying that link to information should be preserved.

Regarding a compromise, how about a special, recipe only boilerplate when listing transwikied articles for deletion? Something that goes somewhat like:

This article is a recipe, and recipes are being moved to the Wikimedia Cookbook on our sister project Wikibooks. The article has been listed for deletion. However, if an article about the recipe is developed during the waiting period for deletion, the page will not be deleted. Administrators, please note not to delete any links to this page if it is deleted.

The recipe's new location is [[Wikibooks:Transwiki:Recipe Name]], and any work on the recipe should be done there.

how about it? Gentgeen 18:51, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The one moving the recipee should preserve the link. It should be his job to do a miserable stub to ensure this. It should not be the other editors to ensure that the mover job is not just making the information disappearing. The links should be preserved. It would be ok on articles such Taty Nell favorite recipee on pork and apple, but cooking recipee of dishes of cultural importance should not be deleted. Links should be preserved and a stub made.

I do not understand what "Administrators, please note not to delete any links to this page if it is deleted." means. If a page is deleted, then links are deleted, so what do you mean ?

Anthère0

• http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010882.html (optim)
• http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010885.html (Fred)
• http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010881.html (Mark)
• http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010883.html (David)
• http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010903.html (Geoff)
• http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010907.html (Ec)
• http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010904.html (Ec)
• http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010889.html (Mark)
• http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010891.html (Theresa)
• http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010895.html (JIMBO)
• http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010899.html (Erik)
• http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010902.html (dpb)
• http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010913.html (Elian)

Most agree they could be moved (see Jimbo opinion though and Elian one), but most also consider links should be preserved.

I agree that as many links to Wikibooks:Cookbook and the indivual recipes there should be included in en:wikipeida. As 1 of the 4-5 major editors of the Wikimedia Cookbook I like getting as much exposure for the fairly new project as is possible.

Absolutely ! I would like very much that wikibook to evolve. And more exposure would be good for it. I planned at some point (last summer ?) to help it, especially to contribute with articles such as local food, slow food or stuff on food safety...and I gave up by lack of time :-(

Regarding the line about not delinking a page if it is deleted, IIRC, sometimes the sysops make a page an orphan before deleting it to discourage the page being recreated in the furure. The boilerplate is asking them not to do this, so that if someone comes across a red "empty link" in the future to a once existing recipe they can easily click the link and begin a article about that dish. The exceptions I would have for this are that the links from List of recipes can be deleted, or perhaps reaimed to the recipe's home in wikibooks, as the page is no longer a recipe; and a page with the title of how to cook something or Cooking a turkey, for example, should be orphaned as the title is asking a recipe to be added, not an article. Gentgeen 18:37, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But Gentgeen, if someone type in the search box, something like cuisses de grenouille à la provençale, and do not find anything at all, don't you think he will not try to start an article ? With a recipee ? Again ? In this case, isn't that better that an article already exist, and points to wikibooks for a recipee ? Anthère0

I assume this entry isn't still under threat of deletion? fabiform | talk 18:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, it's still listed for deletion, but all the recipes got moved to their own page so they would be forgotten and remain in the 'pedia. They should go back to VfD, now that the size issue has been resolved, and be dealt with. Gentgeen 06:37, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There seem there was an agreement to keep a certain number of recipee which would be kept for cultural background. FirmLittleFluffyThing

But this isn't a recipe, so is this page really still listed for deletion? fabiform | talk 15:19, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ratatouille movie

should this article include something in it about the new movie that is coming out in June 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratatouille_%28film%29 is a link to that article, but i don't know if it would be relevant at all. i personnally think it would, since the movie is named after this dish, but it doesn't really matter Thedrtaylor 02:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. The film dominates Google's search returns for "ratatouille"; I suspect that most people in the English-speaking world would be surprised to learn that it is a real-life food, with a history, and not something invented for the film. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actual Recipe?

How about an actual recipe for this dish? --24.249.108.133 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Recipes belong over on Wikibooks:Cookbook - they are specifically excluded from Wikipedia (see WP:ISNOT#HOWTO) and should be transwikied to the Cookbook if they are seen over here. FlagSteward 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Try this site [2]. The recipe I've learned in Southern France is slightly different, but hey my wife calls it 'tomato and courgette bake' the version we eat at home and let me tell ya, it is delicious :-) Oooh yes! The ratatouille can be served either hot or cold. It's delicious with eggs: hot, serve with an omelette; cold, serve with cold hard boiled eggs. Uranometria (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I take a middle stance. Exact recipes in general are not appropriate. However, a description of a type of dish could include a generalized description of how it's prepared. For example, an article about ice-cream should discuss how it's made by churning milk, cream, and flavorings while freezing, but the article shouldn't give a specific recipe for vanilla ice cream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.2 (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Confit byaldi

As a minor variant of ratatouille, I can't help feeling that Confit byaldi should be merged in here. FlagSteward 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Kapunata

As I can't find any other references to 'atrankid', I've changed the name of the Maltese version back to kapunata. I've also linked it to the Maltese cuisine page. Rojomoke 17:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-contradictory

"It is usually served as a meal in a lunch setting, with bread. [...] It is most usually served as a side dish." Well, those can't both be true. Which? 86.143.199.183 18:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A well prepared Ratatouille

This section needs to be removed, or at least reconsidered. For one thing, it sounds like pompous culinary school talk, and for another, its flat out wrong. In Provence it is well known that there are two broad styles of cooking Ratatouille. One is similar to the method described (although I have never seen or heard of anyone baking it in a casserole, its a dish fait a la poele), but plenty of cooks, including my mother (who is Provencal) cook everything more or less together. Keep in mind this is a simple peasant dish originally, and best when uncomplicated. If the article gets too specific, its going to get it wrong, simply because this is a generic dish and there are many ways to prepare it, none of them more 'proper' than any other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.42.211 (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you fix it, then, and discuss the two variants - if you can, with a source. I already de-reciped it as much as I could (which explains the use of passive tense - better than instructing the reader what to do), but I was hesitant to change what it said because I simply don't know and don't have sources to know if it's correct or not. Wikidemo 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay I did it but as I'm not a registered user I don't know how long this will last before being changed back. To me, essentially, the former version was much too like an actual recipe. In addition, and most importantly, it was a very specific rendition of a dish that varies quite a bit over the local landscape, and it purported to be the "correct" version, which it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.42.211 (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Recipe removed

The recipe has been removed. I am looking for an authinic Ratatouille recipe. Please add it to my talk page. MahaPanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --MahaPanta 02:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent move

This article has been renamed from Ratatouille (food) to Ratatouille as the result of a move request.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - No opposition to move so Movied. Keith D (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the moive for a couple reasons. First, the movie just came out. In the grand scheme of things the food is more important than a film made about the food, and ten years from now most searches will be for the dish, not the film. Which brings up the second point, the food is the more fundamental issue. But I don't see any harm and I do love the film, so I'm leaving as is. Wikidemo (talk) 22:52, 80 December 20040 (UTC)

• (in case the above is not obvious), I Support the move as per Reginmund and Remember the dot, below). Wikidemo (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• destroy a move back. This was a really unorthodox move and should not have been done just because a film came out naming itself after it. User: brown munde (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support a move back for the same reasons. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Wikipedia is not a Pixar outpost. EJF (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support per WP:RECENTISM and the movie title is semi-derivative. — AjaxSmack 06:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support I thought it was already moved back but Anthony Appleyard was too "neutral" (using his words). Food was always primary subject and should not be demoted just because of one film, like other resist

here are saying about recentism. Callmederek (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources

Suggest use of sources more reputable than Guardian which has really gone down. Cheers.

Fruit-dominated dish

Of the listed ingredients, there's only one vegetable (onions). The rest are all fruits (eggplants, zucchinis, tomatoes, peppers) and herbs (everything else). Should the main page note this? 1/10 listed ingredients being vegetables isn't a good tally for a "stewed vegetable" dish.--18:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.218.180.38 (talk)

Please be aware that the article is using culinary terms, not botanical terms, i.e., that a "vegetable" is any plant part that is used in a non-dessert manner, and that a "fruit" is any plant part that is used as a dessert or a sweet snack, i.e., "tomato is a vegetable," and "rhubarb stalk is a fruit." Having said those, it is not helpful to make such quibbling distinctions.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Turkish Türlü

The Greek name for the dish, Tourlou, comes from the Turkish Türlü, which loosely means "assorted" as in assorted vegetables in a dish. Many modern Greek words come down from the long period when the region was part of the Ottoman Empire. When I lived in Turkey I never heard the term "briam" at all. Perhaps Turkish readers could comment on this. Türlü is found in most street restaurants and is widely available in cans. --MichaelGG (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice?

What's the evidence for ratatouille originating in Nice? The linguistic evidence, i.e. the existence of an Occitan name and the suggestion that the preparation is relatively recent would seem to suggest an Occitan origin rather than a Provençal one. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Misleading photo

The current main photo for this article is an Iranian ratatoua (the local variant of ratatouille from what I am able to find online), as stated in the image description.

I presume that this image has been chosen (possibly picked from the french Wikipedia article for ratatouille) because it resembles the confi byaldi that is served at the end of the Disney movie Ratatouille; but it is not a standard ratatouille.

Would it not be better to use an image of a traditional French stew-like (or even the more modern roasted variant) ratatouille? 37.171.60.89 (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It was changed in April 2022. I've changed it back to the original photo. Ttwaring (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)