This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally support such a move to a WP:NATURAL title. However, I find the construction "chicken meat" very odd. As I was raised, chicken was never considered a meat, but a poultry. One buys poultry at a poulterer's, and meat at a butcher's. For that reason, I cannot support the proposed title, and must oppose it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that this is actually called chicken meat?--67.68.31.244 (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the current name is fine and the new one is weird 76.120.162.73 (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't 'Chicken (food)' be a page about what chickens eat? Both in captivity and in the wild. And what to feed your chickens if you raise them. Maybe rename this to the more accurate 'Chicken (as food)'. Randy Kryn 18:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but this is about food, not the meat itself, which is an interrelated topic; not all the meat is food, not all bits eaten as food is meat. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The current title reflects the subject more so than the proposed one. Additionally, "meat" has a specific connotation in (American) English, that is the flesh from a mammalian source (Pork, lamb, mutton and beef are traditionally considered "meat", while chicken, turkey and other fowl are considered "poultry") Finally, if you wish to change the current naming structure of this article, it should follow similarly named articles such as fish as food, salmon as food and other related topics. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
100 grams of chicken meat also contains 0.41 µg of Vitamin B12. Why is this not mentioned? Reputable sources are easy to find all over the internet. Yes, the chicken is a good source of Vitamin B12 and the article is not mentioning it. Please include it. Here is the source https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/331897/nutrients — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.64.136.84 (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus to stay with current title based largely on WP:CONSISTENT. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chicken as food → Chicken in Culinary Practices– a more specific and engaging title could enhance the article's appeal and accessibility to readers 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 02:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Chicken as food → Chicken in Culinary Practices - The current title "Chicken as food" lacks specificity regarding its focus on human consumption. By including "Chicken in Culinary Practices" in the proposed title, we highlight the article's main focus on the role of chicken in human cuisine. This change aims to better inform readers about the content they can expect to find in the article, making it more accessible and appealing to those interested in culinary topics and everyone in general. Thanks. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 01:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as this name format is not used in any other similar articles listed in Category:meat or subcategories. Also I would like to note that even if consensus to move per nominator's reasoning is found, the new name should be Chicken in culinary practices per Wikipedia's capitalization policy. Bensci54 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that's the case I can agree to change the new name to "Chicken in culinary practices". Additionally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 02:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We have dozens of "as food" articles: Fish as food, Snails as food, Eggs as food, ... and no "...in culinary practices" articles. Why should chicken be any different? --Macrakis (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles may look different, that's the nature of Wikipedia. Fish as food could possibly be improved, but that's not particularly relevant to this discussion. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 02:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it less clear is my question 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 02:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't understand what distinction the proposal is meant to draw between "food" and "culinary practices", but it's not necessary for a descriptive title to try so hard to be technically correct. We don't have to specify that it's "human" food; a primary focus on humans can just be implied, like Sleep and Sleep in animals for example. "Food" is plain language. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change XtoY".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
