Talk:Pizza cheese/Archive 1

src: tamaractalk.com

Video Talk:Pizza cheese/Archive 1

(Comment)

This must be a joke. To put a cheese sort and calling it Pizza cheese is a bit too much. Your criteria is based on use. The cheese itself, the cheese type cannot be pizza cheese. You have to provide names of types of cheeses based on their characteristics not on their use. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.190.213 (talk o contribs) 30 May 2007? (UTC)

Maps Talk:Pizza cheese/Archive 1

Sources

Google Scholar has many articles directly about this topic. See this search. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Almost all are about the manufacture of low-moisture mozzarella... --Jeremy (blah blah o I did it!) 19:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Rather, many are directly about the topic. If you haven't already done so, don't forget to check out the sources beyond the first page of results. Your dismissal of entire pages of potential sources is concerning. It appears that you're attempting to disqualify the topic's notability from the start, rather than addressing the actual sources one-by-one. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

src: stmedia.startribune.com

WP:BRD discussion

The information that has recently been have added is totally unrelated to the article at hand:

1. Several are about USDA guidelines about frozen pizzas and are not about the subject
2. The journal articles are about the manufacture of mozzarella, processed cheese and cheese analogues not any specific product known as pizza cheese.
3. In every single case the term pizza cheese is being used simply as a synonym for those products and is not about actual products called pizza cheese.

Because these links are simply to articles that use the terms "pizza" and "cheese" in the title or body and are not actually about the product, they are not appropriate for inclusion. In fact their inclusion is nothing more than source dumping in an attempt to force the article to meet the notability standards, which it does not. As such I have challenged their inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah o I did it!) 07:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here's the sources that were blanket removed. In the future, please don't remove the categories in the process as you did in this instance. It creates more work for other editors. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That was a mistake, I missed those when I removed the material. --Jeremy (blah blah o I did it!) 08:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Source evaluation

Research

• Kindstedt, P.S. "Recent developments in the science and technology of pizza cheese". Australian journal of dairy technology. Retrieved September 27, 2012. 
• Breene, W.F. (July 27, 1964). "Manufacture of Pizza Cheese without Starter". Volume 47, Issue 11. Journal of Dairy Science. pp. 1173-1180. Retrieved September 27, 2012. 
• Quarne, E.L. (April 1968). "Recovery of Milk Solids in Direct Acidification and Traditional Procedures of Manufacturing Pizza Cheese". Volume 51, Issue 4. Journal of Dairy Science. pp. 527-530. Retrieved September 27, 2012. 
• "Effect of incorporation of denatured whey proteins on chemical composition and functionality of pizza cheese". Australian journal of dairy technology. Retrieved September 27, 2012. 
• Kindstedt, P. S.; (et al.) (1997). "Chemically-acidified pizza cheese production and functionality". Irish Republic, Dairy Products Research Centre [5th Cheese Symposium]; Irish Republic, Univ. of Cork. Retrieved September 27, 2012. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)

• Y The above five sources are directly on-topic about pizza cheese. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Bachmann, Hans-Peter (July 11, 2011). "Cheese analogues: a review". Volume 11, Issues 4-7. International Dairy Journal. pp. 505-515. Retrieved September 27, 2012. 

• ? "Cheese analogues: a review" may be off topic, although in the abstract it states, "Cheese analogues represent little threat to the continued consumption of natural cheeses: Their major role at present is undoubtedly in the cost-cutting exercises of pizza manufacturers." May be usable to verify information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Books

• Fundamentals of Cheese Science - Patrick F. Fox, Paul L. H. McSweeney, Timothy M. Cogan, Timothy P. Guinee - Google Books

• Y The above source is on-topic: it uses the term "pizza cheese" sometimes, and then refers to pizza cheese as "cheese" at other times. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

News sources

• McNeil, Marshall (December 23, 1964). "Pizza Cheese Must Hew to Line". The Pittsburgh Press. Retrieved September 27, 2012. 

• Y This article uses the term "pizza cheese" in its headline, and has some information about how mozzarella was marketed as "pizza cheese" by midwest (U.S.) producers. Could be used to verify information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• "USDA Withdraws Proposal for Pizza Cheese". St. Joseph Gazette. Associated Press. April 14, 1987. Retrieved September 27, 2012. 

• B An article about cheese used on pizzas. May be off-topic for the most part, and thus not pertainable to qualify the topic's notability, although the information could be used to delineate about variance in standards regarding the use of cheese on pizza. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Pizza Cheese Popular". The Hartford Courant. November 4, 1962. Retrieved September 27, 2012.  (subscription required)

• ? A paywalled article from 1962. The only information available in the document summary is the headline, titled "Pizza Cheese Popular". Does anyone have access to the entire article? Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Patents

• Reinbold; (et al.) (April 18, 1978). "Preparation of Pizza Cheese". United States Patent and Trademark Office. Retrieved September 27, 2012. 

• Y Directly on-topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Many of the sources are directly about pizza cheese, specifically the first five research sources listed above. These are certainly suitable to expand and improve the article. These 5 research sources state that they're about "pizza cheese" directly, and then afterward sometimes just use the word "cheese", because it's unnecessary in research papers and journals to use the full noun-phrase "pizza cheese" repeatedly thereafter when the specific context of pizza cheese has already been stated, such as in research paper abstracts. In these instances, and in many others listed above, it's already clearly implied that latter use of the word "cheese" is in the context of "pizza cheese." Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support removal of bad references per this comment pbp 04:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Eight of the sources above are directly on-topic about pizza cheese. Others may not be entirely about the topic alone, but include information about it, and may be usable to verify information. Contrary to the objection at the header of this discussion thread, most of these sources are directly related to the topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

src: i2.wp.com

Some sources

The topic obviously meets WP:GNG. Manufactures are going to make cheese specifically for one of the worlds most popular foods and reliable sources are going to write about it: e.g., Glanbia forges (pounds) 30m alliance with US cheese group Plan is to expand further into lucrative EU pizza cheese market (Irish Times August 12, 2000), Effect of incorporation of denatured whey proteins on chemical composition and functionality of pizza cheese (Australian Journal of Dairy Technology April 30, 2001), Whey proteins and pizza cheese (Dairy Industries International September 30, 2001); Formidable fortunes: This year it paid to be a butcher, a baker and a pizza cheese maker (National Post May 25, 2002); Pizza cheese to come from milked cats (Guardian November 2, 2007); Saputo has decided not to reopen its Vermont pizza cheese plant (Dairy Foods December 1, 2008); Chr Hansen and Novozymes develop enzyme for producing pizza cheese from whey (Chemical Business News March 9, 2009). I'm not sure why there is resistance to this topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Because not a single article is about a product or item known as pizza cheese. In every single case the term is being use as a synonym for mozzarella or some sort of processed cheese food product. There is no thing in real life called pizza cheese. --Jeremy (blah blah o I did it!) 08:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems like you're (User:Jerem43) trying to disqualify the topic's notability, rather than discussing the actual sources. Consider evaluating each source separately, rather than making generalized statements that immediately dismiss all of them en masse. Note that a proper evaluation of the sources has occurred above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The topic isn't notable and the stuff you're adding does not make it so. And I have been reading them, and their still not doing it. --Jeremy (blah blah o I did it!) 09:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but your assessment is very subjective. For example, how is an article about the "Recent developments in the science and technology of pizza cheese" in the WP:BRD discussion section above not about the topic? This is significant coverage directly about the topic, as are many of the other sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Having the term in the title does not make the article about something called pizza cheese if the term being used is a simply being used as a synonym for mozzarella manufacture. When we have a subject that goes by multiple names, we do not have and article for each variation on that name. The sources you provide prove that this isn't a real thing but simply a generic term used by the authors of the sources to familiarize the reader with the subject. In almost every case the articles go on to describe the manufacture of the aforementioned cheeses that go on pizza. These products already have their own articles, and the string of conscious thoughts tied together by the fact that people use the term pizza cheese to describe them on the page should be broken up and put into their respective articles and strengthening those articles. This page should be a redirect pointing to those three pages.

And stop saying I am not reading the articles, that I am applying bias to the argument, et cetera. Questioning my research into the subject does not make your argument stronger. I have taken the time to read through these various posts and I simply do not see what you are seeing. There is a difference of opinions as to the subject of these sources you added, not the quality. These are very good sources, but they are not about the subject of this article and do not establish notability or even verify the term. Remember, comment on the argument, not the contributor.

Finally, please stop breaking up other contrib's posts, it makes reading through the subject harder. --Jeremy (blah blah o I did it!) 18:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: "breaking up other contrib's posts." Sorry, but I'm the person that posted the sources in the above WP:BRD discussion section, so technically it would "breaking up" my own post, rather than another contributor's. However, the review is functional, and this type of style has significant precedent on Wikipedia. It prevents having to restate the sources continuously and having to scroll back and forth between comments and the sources. See Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/August 2012 for another example of the use and functionality of this style. Obviously, we disagree about the notability of this topic, but it's all good. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree. Best, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

src: stmedia.startribune.com

Disambiguation

I have plainly demonstrated, through merging of nearly all the material elsewhere, that this article serves no clear purpose except to compile information we can easily include in other articles. As such, I think we should restore my bold effort to turn this page into a disambiguation page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I was getting the quote from the deletion review and writing my reply while you posted this. Anyway, see my response below. I find it rather unlikely there will be any consensus for your actions. Dream Focus 00:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 28

• That's what the result of the deletion review was. It did not say to eliminate the article and replace it with a disambiguate page as The Devil's Advocate did, so I of course did revert that action. [1] There was no discussion to make such a radical change, and obviously many would be against it. I find it unlikely anyone wouldn't realize that after participating in the AFD and the deletion review. Dream Focus 00:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: The redirection of this article, as shown by the copious sourcing found during the AfD. Devil's Advocate made similar arguments in the AfD and DRV, where he was opposed by a large majority of editors.--Milowent o ^hasspoken 00:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I would also note that the ability to merge articles does not equal necessity. This was one of the main points raised in the AfD discussion that was found exceedingly weak by new editors reviewing the situation.--Milowent o ^hasspoken 00:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• There is no point in keeping this page as an article when nearly every last scrap of information can easily be included elsewhere in articles where it makes more sense. As you can see here, here, here, and here, no significant information was deleted so you are essentially objecting to the page not being an article, when those edits clearly illustrate that no article is needed. I find discourse is a lot less compelling than bold edits.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  You ignored consensus. You just decided what everyone else said and thought didn't matter, you'd just go ahead and do it your way. It makes more sense to have it here, where anyone who wants to learn about the cheese they put on pizza, will find it in one convenient place not spread out all over the place. Dream Focus 01:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't ignore consensus at all. There was no consensus for keeping this as an article and that is what the DRV decided, even though the keep arguments in the AfD were the typical invalid arguments that should be dismissed when gauging consensus on a merger. A disambiguation page insures that people can locate the relevant material. People don't need an article to tell them what kind of cheese people put on pizza.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• It decided there was no consensus for deleting this article. That's what "no consensus" means. And you have decided that anyone who made an argument you disagreed with were obviously invalid, so you didn't need to count them, consensus was determined only by people who agreed with you. Dream Focus 07:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop

The consensus was against deletion, not moves or merges. A "keep" on AfD or DR does not preclude a discussion on a moving or merging the article. How ever we should still have a discussion. DA, would you consider starting a proper merge discussion? --Jeremy (blah blah o I did it!) 04:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as I have already merged what could be merged, we are only left with a discussion about how to deal with this page now that it just has the same material that is now included in other articles. Changing it to a dab is the most appropriate change.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy, The Devil's Advocate knew many would object to a merger, but did it anyway, instead of starting a discussion he knew would end in no consensus to merge. You can read his above statements to see how easily he dismisses the opinions of others as invalid, and believes he can just go against consensus and do what he wants. That's now how Wikipedia works. Dream Focus 07:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't care. Start a discussion and stop arguing about who is right or wrong. --Jeremy (blah blah o I did it!) 08:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - the conversion of this page to a disambiguation page, because the topic is notable per the multiple sources consisting of significant coverage that exist about it. See also: WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support: WP:PRESERVE isn't being violated here if the content is moved to other articles. And there has never been a consensus AGAINST merging this content to other articles pbp 22:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

src: media.npr.org

Discuss it outside of the merge discussion

You state the information in this article is duplicated from other articles, but you got have that backwards, information from this article was duplicated into them. Dream Focus 08:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Read the whole proposal and don't parse words. --Jeremy (blah blah o I did it!) 09:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Its worded in a misleading way. What parts of this article, if any, were taken from other articles? Dream Focus 09:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion below is for the merge proposal, not a debate on what has transpired above. --Jeremy (blah blah o I did it!) 09:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I am commenting on your comments there. Don't move my post around. Dream Focus 09:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't. Read the guidelines. It is not a conversation, debate or anything else. It is a poll on consensus and I would prefer that you keep simple and concise and not turn it into anything else. --Jeremy (blah blah o I did it!) 09:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Point to this guideline you believe exist. I assure you, it does not. You said something and I responded to it in the proper manner. And I don't care what you want, Wikipedia isn't going to suddenly stop doing things the normal way simply you wish it differently. Don't move someone's post to a different section. Dream Focus 09:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines were set up as a point of courtesy. They are not binding, but simple reminders to behave yourself and as a request not to turn a merge discussion into another argument over who is right or wrong or who has the "correct" facts. Your post has no basis on my opinion and is distraction from the discussion about merging this article into the others. If you want to contribute, contribute a !vote - don't try to debate other contributors support/oppose votes. --Jeremy (blah blah o I did it!) 09:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't want me to respond to something, then don't say it. Don't go moving people's post around, that against the rules I'm certain. Dream Focus 09:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

src: 2.bp.blogspot.com

Proposed merge

Source of the article : Wikipedia