Talk:Georgian cuisine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

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.

Already moved.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:32, 24 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. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly support the move to Georgian cuisine for the following reasons: (a) grammatical construction, (b) logic, (c) searchability by users, (d) accessibility to users (e) consistency across Wikipedia. Cookery terminology for the State of Georgia in the U.S. falls consistently under "Georgian cooking", and there seems to be no "cuisine" associated with the State of Georgia. So there is no danger of collision, as with Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state). To be on the safe side, we may need to create a dab for "Georgian cooking", directing the reader to Georgian cuisine for the Cuisine of Georgia (country) and to other pages for the cooking of the State of Georgia. --Zlerman (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support per reasons cited. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - per reasons cited. Neelix (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support If and when there is an article on the food of the state of Georgia a disamb. can be added. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support provided we then change the first sentence to clarify that it is about the country. Sam⁵ (talk) 14:33, 5 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) 12:07, 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) 20:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify what you are strongly opposed to: the article as it stands today (whether we like it or not) is called Georgian (country) cuisine. Is this how you want to keep the main article name? --Zlerman (talk) 01:42, 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) 17:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Let's remove the ugly parameters in the middle of the title.--Caspian blue 13:32, 8 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)

The notices were posted on food project member pages and were neutral as to viewpoint. Soliciting input is good. Jerem43 is focused on naming conventions, which is why we are having these discussions. So if you have input in that regard please offer it up and cease with personal attacks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:12, 7 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.

Foodstuff names

Those lists of foods could be removed (I think should be) - they are just lists of names, in a foreign language, with no links to any other Wiki pages. Maybe a few items of various kinds, with links to material about the item?? Dumarest (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Abkhaz cuisine redirects here.

It is like "Israeli cuisine" redirecting to German cuisine. I understand "Britain" does not recognise independence of Abkhazia, that is one thing but, Abkhaz people which are older than any "British nation", are another issue, which doesn't need recognition. Also majority of the Abkhaz people live in Turkey and Russia which renders geographic explanation for this aggression plainly stupid. please correct this big mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.69.47 (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not this link someplace?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khachapuri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfwoods (talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Chackapuli.png
• Khachapuri4.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)