Talk:Unagi: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 71.243.45.200 - "" |
response |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
== Sustainability == |
== Sustainability == |
||
sustainability should go in the aqua culture article. there is no paragraph in the beef article about climate change. it is not encyclopedic in this article <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.243.45.200|71.243.45.200]] ([[User talk:71.243.45.200|talk]]) 23:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
sustainability should go in the aqua culture article. there is no paragraph in the beef article about climate change. it is not encyclopedic in this article <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.243.45.200|71.243.45.200]] ([[User talk:71.243.45.200|talk]]) 23:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
: True, eel are aquacultured, but aquaculture itself is not unsustainable. In fact, the fact that eels cannot be raised through their full life cycle makes them increasingly threatened. It is the harvesting of young eels from the wild, specifically for food, which is unsustainable. Therefore, it seems to make much more sense to treat the sustainability issue here rather than at [[aquaculture]], which is a far broader topic. As for the [[beef]] article and climate change, that doesn't really have any direct bearing on this article. I think adding a bit on climate change to the beef article would be a beneficial contribution. I don't believe any policy would prevent it, but rather it probably just hasn't been suggested or contributed at this point. If you believe there is a specific [[WP:POLICY|Wikipedia policy]] that would preclude the inclusion of a discussion of sustainability here, please cite it.<span style="color:#008000;font-family:times, sans serif;">[[User:Djlayton4|DJLayton4]] ([[User talk:Djlayton4|talk]])</span> 01:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:17, 13 February 2012
Food and drink Stub‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Japan Stub‑class | |||||||||||||||||
|
Can anyone provide an IPA pronounciation? 70.104.205.63 17:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Unaju not Unadon
Yes, it is sometimes called unadon when served over rice but it is more often called unaju. The difference is that unadon is served in a circular bowl while an unaju is served usually in laquered box. It is most often served in the laquered boxes since the rectangular pieces of the unagi fit better in the rectangular boxes.
Miyashita 9 Dec 2007
Unaju AND Unadon: Both of these words are used in the Japanese vocabulary, though used in different situations. When served in a circular bowl, a la "donburi" (can be translated as 'rice bowl') it is called, "unadon," a contraction of "unagi" and "donburi." Quite a lot of donburi dishes exist that have been contracted to just "x-don." For example, oyako-don (parent/child [chicken and egg] rice bowl), ten-don (tenpura rice bowl), gyu-don (beef rice bowl), etc. "Unadon" is simply one more "donburi" style rice bowl with unagi on it.
Unaju (うな重) is specifically reserved for unagi served from a square laquer dish. It is usually a lot more unagi than that which is served on donburi, and it is usually much more high-quality, which is why unaju is a lot more expensive. To some Japanese, calling a cheap unagi rice-bowl you buy at a cafeteria (食堂, shokudo) "unaju" is a bit of an overstatement.KogeJoe (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Unakyu
"Unakyu, is the more common expression used for sushi containing eel."
No, "unakyu" is a contraction of "unagi" and "kyuuri" (窮理, cucumber), which refers specifically to a sushi roll with grilled eel and cucumber in it. Please correct this blatant error.KogeJoe (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Friends
No Friends reference? Ross? Anything like that? "In Popular Culture"? Revan ltrl (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Though it may not be a strict encyclopeadic one,I think there should be a refference to Friends. The internet today IS a network of words linked together, and Unagi and Friends do have a link. Anuandraj (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This page isn't about the word, it's about the thing. Someone looking for information about unagi (that is to say, the eel thing) isn't looking for information about people who've said the word 'unagi' in a television show, they're looking for information about the eel thing. See here for some guidelines about good/bad in-popular-culture references. --Sneftel (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Sustainability
sustainability should go in the aqua culture article. there is no paragraph in the beef article about climate change. it is not encyclopedic in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.45.200 (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- True, eel are aquacultured, but aquaculture itself is not unsustainable. In fact, the fact that eels cannot be raised through their full life cycle makes them increasingly threatened. It is the harvesting of young eels from the wild, specifically for food, which is unsustainable. Therefore, it seems to make much more sense to treat the sustainability issue here rather than at aquaculture, which is a far broader topic. As for the beef article and climate change, that doesn't really have any direct bearing on this article. I think adding a bit on climate change to the beef article would be a beneficial contribution. I don't believe any policy would prevent it, but rather it probably just hasn't been suggested or contributed at this point. If you believe there is a specific Wikipedia policy that would preclude the inclusion of a discussion of sustainability here, please cite it.DJLayton4 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)