Talk:Gruel
Food and drink Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
In fiction
So you can basically put anything you want here regardless of whether it is important, well written or even interesting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.43.164 (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure here you got that idea, if anything fiction information should be held to stricter standards, since so many people have a tendency to excise it purely for being what it is.
Congee
Congee is a rice porridge, not gruel, so I have removed it from the "In fiction" section (where it didn't belong anyway). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Instead, I'd suggest that a well-linked article Porridge might include gruel and linke congee, polenta yada yada yada: shared history, shared range of contents, shared uses. Only the texture differs: dividing them is not encyclopedic-thinking.--Wetman (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that congee looks like a porridge, then the photo needs to be taken out because it is confusing to use a photo of a porridge as an example.....
jorge1215@aol.com 4/8/2010 but I can't remove it...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.17.200.2 (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the picture. I wish we had a good picture, but it's better to have no picture than a wrong one. The introduction to the Gruel article makes it clear that gruel is "more often drunk than eaten", and the congee in this photo is obviously not drinkable. Moreover, the Congee article states that congee is a type of porridge, and the Porridge article says that porridge is distinct from gruel; therefore at least one of these articles is wrong. — Lawrence King (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Tag Removed
There are now references and sources, not a lot of them, but enough that I am removing the Tag. JimCubb (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)