Talk:Barbecued pork

Untitled

I don't know about this bakkwa business, but I'd call this a disambiguation page... enochlau (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, we cant write about Barbecued pork along with its regional variations here?--Huaiwei 12:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, create a new article about the said regional variation and link to it from here. Really, from the user's point of view, we don't know what they're thinking when they type "Barbequed pork" into the search box, so let's make it a disambig page. enochlau (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually need an article for each variation? — Insta ntnood 18:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need Barbecued pork with rice?--Huaiwei 21:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. That's why we shall merge barbecued pork with rice and char siew rice, under a title that most people would be happy with. — Insta ntnood 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And when no one can agree, the obvious solution is to merge them all back into Char siu.--Huaiwei 10:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... was the article on the rice dish split from that of char siu? [1] [2] [3] — Insta ntnood 17:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them "back" dosent neccesarily mean they were merged "before". I was refering to the step up the hierachy of articles. And does this contribute anything to whether they should all be merged into char siu? You appear more interested in picking faults over technicalities then actually discussing the issue at hand?--Huaiwei 18:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated my position, and you keep on suggesting something which's technically impractical. As a result that was the only possible response that I would be able to make. As for your keeping on challenging my ability to comprehend what you say [4], I'd suppose it's more logical to say "merge to" or "merge into" than "merge back" for this instance. Don't expect everybody to be able to guess correctly every time what you actually want to say. — Insta ntnood 18:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Technically impractical" for an article merger entails either that the Mediawiki software has a bug, the server is down, or wikipedia is gone from existance...etc. For you to call a content suggestion as a "technical impracticality" suggests your complete inability to consider alternative means of resolving long-standing issues. I am far from concerned over your inherent difficulties in comprehending what I write, for I dont have much time handling people with comprehension issues. If it confuses you, good luck. My time is better spent elsewhere.--Huaiwei 19:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By saying "technically impractical" I was referring to the "merge them all back to.." proposal. — Insta ntnood 19:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly think I care? Either comment on the merger proposal or give your fingers (and everyone else) a break.--Huaiwei 19:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. As a matter of fact I've already stated my position on what should be merged, and how they should be merged. — Insta ntnood 19:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a reminder? While if it is, than I suppose you must have been told the same thing before. Apparantly you arent listening or learning from them. Meanwhile, since you have already stated your position somewhere, and apparantly dosent think it neccesary to repeat it here, I suppose you actually do not have anything substaintial to say here are all? What an utter waste of wikibytes.--Huaiwei 19:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

See also