Open main menu
Cincinnati chili has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 28, 2015Good article nomineeListed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 9, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Cincinnati chili (pictured) is not actually chili?

misleading edit summariesEdit

75.186.147.80 please let's discuss here before you make any further edits. Please stop using misleading edit summaries; read WP:SUMMARYNO for why that's a problem if you don't understand. --valereee (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

yet another discussion of photosEdit

That coney isn't partially eaten? There's only cheese on half of it? --valereee (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It was not. I photographed it from one end so you can see other ingredients below the cheese. Jonathunder (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Flavored nationEdit

So apparently the Flavored Nation event had Cincinnati Chili as its ‘most iconic Ohio dish’ …and then the event was changed from St. Louis to Columbus. Now the most iconic Ohio dish is Buckeyes. I would LOVE to find out what happened with this.

Original list for St Louis event

Columbus list

I am SO hoping someone picks this up and writes about it so I can heap shame on Columbus lol --valereee (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I got stuck on Alaska. The article makes the ridiculous claim that Alaskan reindeer were imported from Europe. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Move of entire sections to leadEdit

Hey, Flagrant hysterical curious, I'm not sure all that info moved to the lead is an improvement. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. Now it's nearly as long as the article and includes information not covered in the actual sections of the article. Let's talk. --valereee (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

There's been a number of odd edits to this article in recent days, I've gone ahead and restored the previous, stable version while discussion is underway. Being bold is all well and good, but I agree with Valereee that this seems arbitrary and contrary to the purpose of a lead section. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't keep notes (hand written or otherwise) when I edit and I have trouble understanding the various ways to view tracked edits and changes at wikipedia, but I will do my best to recap some of the reasoning behind my edits in order to address your concerns regarding lead length as well as inclusion of information not covered in the article present in the lead:
A section titled "Reception" seemed unnecessary in a small article about a dish, especially as some information held within (far down in the article as it stood) included information that defined the subject matter. I will agree that having all text from this section in the lead section likely has added some information that would be better placed elsewhere, and I do hope to see or provide edits in that direction.
Hopefully eventually editors can rework things so a reader finds that the lead satisfactorily defines the subject and that information introduced in the lead in short way is expanded on in the article. As for your statement about how the lead section now includes information not covered in sections, I would welcome an edit that splits up the info more appropriately. Some text was moved because it appears to be too important to have appeared in a different section of an article (ie: it provides a description that was not fleshed-out or even included in the lead, leaving Cincinnati chili incompletely defined).
The lead section is now four paragraphs long. I aimed to include useful information with the goal of complete coverage of the subject. The article may become longer (or shorter) at a later date and I don't necessary agree that a lead nearly as long as the current article means my edits didn't improve the article.
If you or anyone would like to provide links to standards/policy/opinion around the issues you brought up I would gladly examine them
(Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC))
Beeblebrox, some of the edits were due to a misunderstanding at User_talk:Lupin_VII#Cincinnati_Chili_revert -- a new editor thought Dixie Chili and Deli referred to two establishments, and that Deli was a misspelling of Delhi, a restaurant that closed a few years ago. --valereee (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
FHC, you can look at Wikipedia:Lead dos and don'ts. What subject-defining info do you feel is in the sections and is needed in the lead? --valereee (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Reference to the dish being american/quintessential/beloved/iconic/scorned.
The introduction of the issue of the misnomer, comprised of the 3rd lead paragraph as it now stands, is given an awkward amount of weight (or phrased with an unhelpful order); I felt like my edit addressed that a bit as well. (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC))
Scorned is covered, the lead refers to people concluding it's a poor example of chili. The others are all basically covered by 'it's the areas best known regional food,' but I'd support adding the Smithsonian mention to the lead. The misnomer section is what supports the lead's 'poor example of chili', which is a pretty big deal, possibly one of the more important issues for the dish, and I don't think it's undue weight. --valereee (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Cincinnati chili" page.