 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- No consensus--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Per the naming convention of Wikipedia for country specific topics, topics that extend beyond the geographical area of the country use the "Country topic" format. This is only one of a handful of national cuisine articles that still uses the older "Topic of Country" format. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Topical articles by country should employ standard uniform titles to avoid confusion. The "Country topic" format is the most appropriate in the case of cuisine. Neelix (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Can't quite see why we need separate move discussions for Bangladeshi, Georgian, Burmese, Cambodian, Macedonian and Indian cuisines, it's not that standardisation is always good but these are have similar issues. Andrewa (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - Each article is named for a reason and uniformity is thus unnecessary, and, in some cases, undesirable. Redirects exist for each national cuisine article. Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support for reasons of naming consistency and conformity with Wikipedia guidelines for naming country-related articles. --Zlerman (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support. not only for standardization, but many of cuisines articles talk about the cuisines outside of the main country and as such are no longer the cuisine of that country, but they are "that style" of cuisine so this change is grammatically correct as well. There needs to be a stop to individual articles having their "own style" as this is academically improper as it will lead to a lack of consistency and possible confusion to the reader, especially when students of culinary arts are looking to these articles for education, like the ones I teach. It is also this lack of consistency that has kept other academics from allowing their students to use Wikipedia for research.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Zlerman. --Caspian blue 13:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with Badagnani. Redirects work perfectly well. Don't see the need unless you are splitting hairs. Wagaung (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I haven't seen a substantive reason not to standardize the terminology. The arguments in favor of standardization include: it's shorter and more to the point, it puts the key subject (the country) first and then the cuisine designator second (an advantageous structure), it's very slightly more inclusive and accurate as food of this type isn't all strictly "of" Burma. There is Burmese cuisine of Thailand, for example. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)- Neutral Changing my view based on substantive issues raised in good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, Cuisine of Burma is more accurate since it includes Indian, Shan, Rakhine cuisine as part of the cuisine of that country. Burmese cuisine could be taken to be restricted to the Burmese (Bamar) majority and exclude excellent dishes like Shan noodle soup (licks his chops) and mutton biryani in Rangoon (salivates!). --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention catfish curry from Rakhine state (yum!) and that thin fish soup
whose name I forget (mondi) (booking my ticket as I type!). --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point. But why would those cuisines be excluded from "Burmese cuisine" any more than from "Cuisine of Burma"? I think they could be included either way. I'm not sure that "could be taken" is a big enough problem. There will still be a redirect. And developing articles on Karen, Shan and other minority group cuisines would be a better way to improve the situation than a formatting that includes "of Burma". Certainly there isn't one cuisine strictly based on one ethnicity or food style in any of the cuisine articles, as all cuisines are conglomerations of state, regional and ethnic cuisines, as well as outside influences.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I doubt it Burmese Cuisine would sound right to the many and diverse minorities, including Chinese and Indian of course, of Burma. See 'of Burma' sounds better than 'Burmese' already. Wagaung (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - contrary to Naming Conventions practice. If you want standardisation, move the "xxxian Cuisine" articles to "Cuisine of xxx" - fchd (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, according to the caveats section of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) when you are dealing with topics that extend beyond the geographical location of a country you use the Country topic format. It specifically says: It is important to be able to differentiate when a topic is actually country-specific. Often what may look like a country adjective is really describing a set of people or a language. Notice that "Polish" may mean "From or related to Poland" or "referring to the Polish people or language." For example Polish language, Polish people, even Polish literature (since these articles most often deal with the literature of the set of people, not the country necessarily). By contrast, Culture of Poland, Politics of Poland and Economy of Poland are all describing the country itself.
In general, country-specific articles should be named using the form: "(item) of (country)".
This is the accepted wikipedia naming convention at the top of the policy page. This article already complies with the naming convention. Judging by his talk page, the nominator is on some kind of bizarre crusade to rename all the cuisine articles (and only the cuisine articles) - creating fragmented discussions on many pages. The nominator also removed several oppose votes from WP:RM, see diff [1]. This all seems like a complete waste of time to me. Why not spend all that energy improving the cuisine articles? Paxse (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hear, hear! Wagaung (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - As I have stated previously to your argument, you are the one selectively quoting the policy. The policy does not end after the first sentence, it has the Caveats section which notes the exceptions to the naming convention for country specific articles - which this article should be following. The part I have quoted is one of the exceptions to the line you have quoted. That is the reason why the policy starts off with the phrase In general, instead of The only naming convention allowable for... as you are trying to infer. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 22:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Canvassing support for article moves
(posted by User:Pakse and removed from discussion page of proposing editor)
Apparently, the naming conventions for cuisine articles are an extremely important issue for you. However, I really think that your behaviour over this article renaming is getting a little out of hand. Canvassing support for your position by posting messages on the talk pages of those who have supported your position in the past is frowned upon on Wikipedia. This kind of votestacking is contrary to policy, see WP:CANVAS. Developing consensus doesn't just mean the consensus that you want. What you have been attempting to do on the cuisine article pages and at WP:RM is attempting to WP:GAME the system. This is disruptive and not conducive to the co-operative atmosphere. A look at various naming convention policy pages show that you have been pursuing this agenda in various fora since at least August this year. Significantly, no clear consensus has ever emerged in any of these discussions - not even in the Food and Drink Wikiproject, where you are very active.
It's clear from your contributions that you are a very valuable contributor to the project. You have done excellent work on many articles particularly related to food and drink. As someone who has read the Burger King article, I personally appreciate your hard work to make that article such an interesting and informative read.
Unfortunately, something seems to have changed. Judging by your recent edit history you have become somewhat fixated on the issue of naming for national cuisine articles. The move logs show that you have personally moved 30+ national cuisine articles in the last week to follow your preferred naming convention. Presumably these were little watched articles where you experienced no immediate opposition to your proposed changes. Currently, you are aggressively arguing, canvassing and using misleading edit summaries to achieve the renaming of another half a dozen articles. This is not how consensus is developed. At a bare minimum, I am politely requesting that you immediately stop canvassing inputs only from editors who support your position on renaming these articles. Badagnani (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- My undersatnding is that food project members were notified of the discussions to solicit increased involvement, input and attention to these discussions. I have every reason to believe the notifcations were done in good faith and the notice was written neutrally. I hope we can focus on the substance of the discussions.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was consensus to move. --rgpk (comment) 21:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Cuisine of Burma → Burmese cuisine — This move was suggested back in 2008 but the discussion ended without consensus because there were mixed practices at the time about how to format the titles of articles about cuisine by country. Since then, "Adjectival cuisine" has come into standard use for these articles because of Wikipedia's policy about common names. Ultimately, none of the arguments presented back in 2008 against the move were specific to Burma; the ambiguity between nationality and ethnicity is common to most of these articles but is not an issue because all of the ethnic cuisines within a particular nation are within the scope of that nation's cuisine article. There is a handfull of national topics that have been accepted in practice as exceptions to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) in order to be consistent with WP:COMMONNAME; cuisine is one of them. A search on Google Books reveals 313 hits for "Burmese cuisine", but only 16 for "Cuisine of Burma". Not only is "Burmese cuisine" by far the more common name, but it is consistent with the rest of the national cuisine articles. As such, Cuisine of Burma should be moved to Burmese cuisine. Neelix (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment
Oppose (mildly) I continue to believe the current title is more accurate. Burmese cuisine, even in Burma, is primarily identified with the Bamar/Myanmar majority ethnic group and the Burmese differentiate between Burmese, Shan, Rakhine, and Indian cuisine. --rgpk (comment) 14:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment is a more accurate description of my position on this so I've modified my oppose accordingly. --rgpk (comment) 13:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Split the cuisine of a country versus the ethnic cuisine. Burmese cuisine is found outside of Burma, and is of the Burmese ethnic group. The cuisine of a country however covers all forms in the country. These are two distinct and separate topics. I don't doubt that most of the article belongs at "Burmese cuisine", but not all of it. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The way that most cuisine articles deal with the divide between national and ethnic cuisines is to host all of the various ethnic cuisines on the national cuisine article. It is true that the ethnic cuisines are produced outside the country, but this is treated as a diaspora and is therefore treated on the national cuisine article anyway. Neelix (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support It should be Burmese cuisine. Today's Burmese cuisine is an amalgam of all ethnic cuisines. If you want to be literal about Bamar (Upper Burman) cuisine, then we'd get a depressingly bland cuisine of rice, beans, noodles and meat stews. No fish paste, no fish/shrimp sauce, no spices, no curries, very little seafood--all the ingredients that one would think make Burmese cuisine Burmese cuisine. Especially in urban areas in the south where many ethnicities co-exist, people basically eat the same (differ only by what they can afford). I don't know of any particular ethnic group just sticking to their ethnic cuisine. Even in Upper Burma, where transportation costs and the lack of refrigeration still make southern (maritime) ingredients much more costly, people there eat Burmese cuisine, not just the traditional Bamar food (if there's still such a thing). Hybernator (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Burmese cuisine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Burmese cuisine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
