Talk:Fastnacht (Pennsylvania Dutch)

Include recipes?

I'm glad this new article exists, and I think the background on the history and the celebrations are really interesting/useful to have here. I'm unsure whether the article should include the recipes, though. What do others think? It may be more traditional to include an external link to a site that posts recipes. Alternatively, perhaps we could include a list of the ingredients that typically make up a fastnacht instead of keeping it in recipe format. Jami430 (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

although my Pennsylvania Dutch soul loves fasnachts I don't think the recipes belong here. A brief description about different styles would be sufficient, along with an external link to the recipes perhaps. PurpleChez (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Improve tone/quality

Several areas do not read like an encyclopaedia entry and should be rewritten, perhaps introducing additional sources. 170.28.136.41 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Advertising?

No one I know in the PA Dutch community makes Fastnachts with Coke. The blatant attempt to sell more Coke products with a link to the Coca-Cola website for Coke recipes seems wrong for Wikipedia.

Recipe Inclusion (part 2)

I see there was a discussion about whether or not the recipes should be included above, but it's quite old so I figured a new discussion would suffice. Courtesy ping to the users in the discussion above (Jami430—PurpleChez). I removed the recipes, but my removal was reverted by 155.91.45.237, so I wanted to see what people thought about inclusions of the recipes under WP:NOTGUIDE. TartarTorte 14:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Article hijack

This article was supposed to be about the festival, not the pastry. There is already an article about the pastry. Attempting to subvert an article into a hybrid of more than one subject or into a disambiguation page without authorization is called article hijack. The passages about the pastry have clearly been shoehorned into the original structure, resulting in monolithic pseudo-paragraphs consisting largely of original research. If no one with knowledge of this topic is willing to correct this situation by August 10, I am going to gut this article. Canonblack (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)