Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (cuisines)/Archive 1

Archive 1

For/Against

The proposal that is listed on the main page is pretty much we have settled into in regards to the naming convention. The beer issue still stands as unresolved, and articles are pretty much split between Beer in xxx and xxx beer.

• Support, I seem to recall suggesting this awhile ago and the idea being shot down in favor of letting individual articles make the decision which I am not in favor of. Wikipedia, just like any other encyclopedia needs continuity.--Chef Tanner :
• Support - Per Chris. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. SilkTork *^YES! 10:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Original discussion

• This proposal works against current policy - Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Country-specific_topics. As we already have a guideline and official policy for how to name articles which works fine, there would need to be a compelling reason for initiating a counter-proposal. I am unsure why European cuisine is being considered better than Cuisine of Europe. Unless a satisfactory explanation is given I feel this is a non-starter.
  • This doesn't really seem applicable, since cuisines generally are not country-specific. French, Italian and Chinese cuisine are practices all over the world, for example. We would also risk forcing upon many article strict limitations of covering only the cuisine within the borders of modern nation states. "XXX cuisine" seems to me like an exception equivalent to "XXX people" or "XXX literature". Peter ^Isotalo 10:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point, there is a difference between Cuisine of Korea - which is about the actual cuisine in the country of Korea, and Korean cuisine which would be about the food as cooked in homes and restaurants around the world and "termed" Korean cuisine. They are, as you indicate, two related but different things. In the UK we understand "Chinese food" to be something we buy from a Chinese restaurant rather than the history, culture, production and cuisine of food in China. It may be that what we are looking at is two different articles, with the parent article being Food in Korea which contains a section termed "Korean cuisine" which can then be broken out in summary style to a stand alone article if and when needed. That would follow the current guidelines, and this proposal could be tightened up to reflect the fact that Cuisine of Korea and Korean cuisine are different and need to be treated as such. SilkTork *^YES! 11:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm by and large skeptical to the idea of separating nation-state from ethnicity in this context. Separating the two will most likely create more problems that it solves, especially if we're adding the option of having a third parent article into the equation. Chinese cuisine outside of China is somewhat of an exception, since it has taken on a life of its own that few other cuisines have. It could just as easily be handled either in dedicated articles covering spin-offs of Chinese cuisine, or simply within the articles on English, American or German cuisine, where applicable. I don't see much good in following a strict interpretaion of the general guidelines in this rather particular case.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

SilkTork suggested a compromise convention in project space, but I feel that this largely ignores the sentiment given by other editors so far. I've split the page into two alterantives instead, and I've also removed the argumentation included in the proposal to keep the cuisines of countries separate. I tried to include the aspects that were intended, but I might have missed something. If so, please amend my suggestion.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I now see what you meant on my talkpage - I thought you were objecting to my removing the straw poll to this talkpage. Yes, I have seen guidelines start out with variations on the project page - but they rarely develop, and sometimes get bogged down in variations. It would be better to have one version on the project page, and for edits to be made to that page. If someone doesn't like a particular edit, it gets discussed on this page and a wording agreement is made. Having multiple versions up there is misleading - which one has the consensus? - which one should be built on? I'll make some minor adjustments so that what we'll have is a proposal which links to current policy. If there's some aspects of my wording that people are unhappy with we can discuss those. I'll incorporate points raised on this page. SilkTork *^YES! 17:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning about compromise and finding a consensus solution, but the problem is that you're only arguing for your own solution in proposed project space. If we're disagreeing on one point, you shouldn't remove the other side of the argument, keep that which isn't disagreed on in the first place, and then call it a compromise. Please try to formulate a concise suggestion for a workable naming policy and confine the argumentation to the talkpage. I don't agree in the least with your turning the proposition into an essay just to accomodate your own opinions.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the essay tag as you've objected to it. The reasoning behind that was that in my experience a number of guideline proposals get rejected, and when they do they are tagged as {{rejected}} which seems to end their existence - fellow editors tend to ignore advice with a "reject" tag. An essay, however, doesn't get rejected and remains an active part of the project space - being used as appropriate by fellow editors who wish for some guidance. If this project page starts out as a dual existence as both essay and guideline proposal, it could continue as an essay if it fails as a guideline. However, it's more liable to face a dispute when changing from "proposal" to "essay" after it has been rejected. I know - I've been there, done that and got the fridge magnets!

I felt I had incorporated both sides of the argument on the project page. What we can't do here is have contradictory advice to another guideline, especially if that guideline is supported by policy, as the country naming guideline is. If you wish to challenge the country naming guideline then you need to do that on the talkpage of the country naming guideline. I felt I had made an attempt to differentiate articles involving country-specific topics and those that do not, with some rationale. These are early days, and the guideline is yet to be fully developed. Your participation is welcomed and encouraged. SilkTork *^YES! 11:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You've hardly incorporated both sides of the argument since you've simply removed all mention that "XXX cuisine" and "cuisine of XXX" should be treated in the same articles. On top that, you're still basically arguing your case in the proposal instead of limiting yourself to the talkpage. The current text looks like a discussion post, not a proposed guideline. I don't know how else to reflect disagreement except to present two alternatives, so I don't know exactly how to proceed without reverted again.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment

The current WP:F&D convention is correct according to the full policy found here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), specifically referring to the "caveats" section:

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.

Thus subjects that have their origin in a certain country, but are no longer confined to that country use the xxx-ish subject, xxx-ean subject, ad infinitum formats.

I will use Germany as an example. Historically Germany has changed its geographic borders a great deal over the course of history, with Poland and France being on the receiving or taking end. As a result there are parts of the latter two countries having a German culture with a history of German cuisine, German wine and German beer. Thus German beer, the techniques and recipes used to produce it are not only confined to Germany, but is part of these other countries as well. Additionally, according to Modern Marvels, History of Brewing parts 1-3 on the History Channel, German-type beer styles can be found natively in Mexico, Brazil, the US, Canada, Australia and other counties. So in keeping with the MoS guidelines Breweries of Germany is properly named, but the article Beers of Germany would only be correct if the topic was confined to solely to Germany, which it is not. The category Beers of Germany is dead on when classifying beers produced in the country, but again not the subject as a whole. This would also apply to articles such as German breads/Bakeries of Germany, German wines/Wine regions of Germany or Germany beverages/Beverage producers of Germany.

Unless the article's subject is very narrowly focused, projects should probably be using the xxx cuisine, xxx beverages, etc formats when dealing with national cuisines and their child articles, per the MoS.

This is an edited copy and paste of a post I made on the WP:Beer talk page.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 15:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Importance of the distinction

I am quite comfortable with the notions being applied that Italian cuisine and Chinese cuisine are about cuisines that are non-geographic. However, I feel that an article on the actual food that is eaten in Italy would be very encyclopedic, and would need to be called Food in Italy or Cuisine in Italy to differentiate it from articles about Italian pasta. Italians also eat American cereals and American fast-food and drink British and German beer - [1].

If we are to go back to the Beer in Thailand article which caused me to get involved in this in the first place - that article is part of a series of Beers of the World articles which aim to be about the beer production and culture in that particular country - so we are talking about the economics of beer in Thailand, etc. It is fully appropriate, within policy, clear and sensible naming to call an article on a topic within a specific country - "Topic in Specific Country". Just as it makes sense to name an article on a cuisine which is based on a culture - "Culture cuisine". Thailand, for example, has no beer culture that has spread beyond it's borders. The beer in Thailand is based on European pale lager. The article is about the beer economics within Thailand - how much is domestically brewed, what is exported or imported, local consumption figures, the preferred beer styles, the local breweries, etc. SilkTork *^YES! 18:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Italian wine article is about the wines that are produced in Italy and then sold in Italy and elsewhere. While giving some mention to wine drinking within Italy, the article is essentially about Italian wine, and not about wine culture and consumption in Italy. That is fine for wine - as the character of a wine comes partly from the grape and partly from the terroir so it right and proper that there should be articles on the grape, such as Gamay, as well the region. Beer is not wine, and a German beer can be made in America. We have articles on styles of beer: Category:Beer styles. An article on Beer in Germany would of course make mention of those beer styles that originated in Germany, as well as those beer styles that are being imported , as well as many other aspects of beer culture in Germany. SilkTork *^YES! 18:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I can understand how the article series developed, and by what your saying wouldn't a title such as History of Beer in Thailand or Beer/Brewing industry in Thailand be more accurate titles then? I do like your changes to the policy, and think they are almost dead on. Would you mind if I get Chris in on this to deal with your points about the history of cuisines? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm always happier the more people involved the better! Bring everyone! Two heads are better than one, and four heads are even better still. Etc.

I see what you are saying about the more specific article names, and as we get there so we can split articles out into those sub-pages. But there would need to be a main page, and that would most likely be Beer in Country. The cat being Beer and breweries in Country which could hold the main article Beer in Country as well as the sub-pages - History of beer in Country, Breweries in Country, Beer culture in Country, Beer consumption in Country, etc. SilkTork *^YES! 19:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For physical entities like "breweries" or food industries, the format "foo in XXX" seems reasonable, but I still strongly disagree about having separate cuisine articles for the abstract concept of a cuisine and the food eaten in specific countries. Having everything under the same heading does have some potential for confusion, but it's a very minute problem in comparison with the alternative. A regular separation of article is bound to create confusions for readers, large amounts of duplicate information and, most importantly, endless potential for conflict between editors concerning everything from nationalism to historical perspective. A good example of how complicated it could get is the case of cuisine of the United States. Does the current article cover only the abstract concept or the geographically bound cuisine? If a second article were to be created, it would most likely take on the near-duplicate name cuisine in the United States.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think making two separate articles would be very confusing to readers. In addition, separating the concepts into two articles creates a further watering down of the concentration that must go into a topic. It would also help the reader to find everything on the topic in one place, rather than having to search back and forth between two articles which will likely have repetitious information and concepts in them. Besides, articles like Italian cuisine already address the cuisine within the country. All that needs to be added would be a small heading on Italian cuisine outside of Italy with a summary of the differences found in other countries. Then, as in the case of Italian-American cooking we would link to that article outside of the heading under Italian cuisine.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Life in the Republic of Ireland}} Two separate articles would only need to be created where there is a distinct and notable instance of the cuisine of a country having transcended national boundaries. Irish cuisine, for example, is inappropriate. The article is entirely about food in Ireland.

When devising guidelines we need to be aware of existing guidelines, and the rationale and reasoning behind those guidelines, and to keep article names and categorizing within what already exists within Wikipedia to facilitate research and navigation. When there is an article about the history of food in Ireland and the economy of food in Ireland, that article should be named Food in Ireland because that follows guideline and policy, it keeps it within widespread and accepted practice, and better informs the reader what the article is going to be about. Within that article is this useful template - take a close look at it and click every link. Every single link in that template leads to a Foo in Ireland article, except one. The exception is Irish cuisine.

I have taken on board what Jeremy has said about the beer articles - I hadn't thought about the beer style aspect previously, and it is clear that will need tidying up and addressing so that there will be a Beer in Germany article and German beer styles article. So a Beer in Germany article will fit into the German economy cat Category:Economy of Germany while a German beer styles article will fit into the cat - Category:Beer styles which could fall into the cat Category:German culture, where German cuisine lives (perhaps in fact, the German beer styles articles could fit into the cat Category:German cuisine). For example, a Beer in the United Kingdom article will fit into the British economy cat - Category:Economy of the United Kingdom, while a British beer styles article will fit into the cat - Category:Beer styles which would fit into Category:British cuisine. I will start to implement that. SilkTork *^YES! 09:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. When anyone talks outside of Wikipedia about a cuisine, they do not refer to the food in a country as Food in Ireland, they refer to Irish cuisine and it is assumed that they are referring to the cuisine of the country of Ireland. The only way to make it more specific would be Cuisine of Ireland, not Food in Ireland. Food is not the same thing as cuisine, food is part of cuisine, and yes beer is part of a cuisine, it is not separate, just as wine makes up a cuisine as well, check out the headings under Italian cuisine, and French cuisine.--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, we have run into the caveat, alternative 2 says that we should be as close as possible to the national naming structure when naming cuisines, and per that guideline, we are dealing with the aforementioned caveat about items originating in a country that are now global. The Xxx cuisine would be proper per the example in the article. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term cuisine

This one has bugged me for awhile. The term cuisine denotes a set of cultural norms based upon a number of criteria. When studying a cuisine of a country, there are certain confines as to cooks/chefs, education, dishes/beverages, ingredients, history, codification, etc. So, terms such as Vegetarian cuisine make no sense to me. It would be more appropriate to call it Vegetarian cookery or Vegetarian cooking as it is a style of cooking that is often part of a cuisine, but in itself is not a cuisine. Vegetarian "cuisine' can not be part of Indian cuisine, because it is just a style of cooking food within the confines of Indian cuisine. The same goes for Korean vegetarian cuisine, it is not a cuisine, it is a style of cooking within Korean cuisine. Again the proper title would be Korean vegetarian cooking (or cookery, which is the more accepted academic phrase) Perhaps my point can be expanded upon by looking at Raw Foodism (a subset within the vegetarian community), one would not call Raw Foodism a cuisine, it is a life-style and a style of (not) cooking.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I recall at discussion a while ago at WP:CFD about cuisine and what should be included in a category. I think the conclusion was that most of what was classed as cuisine is not really cuisine. I'm not convinced that we need a naming convention for cuisine. Just agree on a form and include it in another guideline. This looks like overkill. Just add a paragraph to Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion should take place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). SilkTork *^YES! 10:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Query moved from project space

I'm confused. Why would "cuisine of the United States" be preferable to/over American Cuisine? I'm sure anyone reading the words American and cuisine could quite easily figure out that what was being mentioned was food traditionally served in the United States. I'm guessing the fear here is that someone would read the words American and cuisine together, and possibly not be able to distinguish if it was talking about a dish served in North or South America, but that's still not a good reason to prefer "cuisine of the United States" over American Cuisine when talking about dishes traditionally served in the United States, IMHO. 98.209.48.133 (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In everyday language, especially among people from the US, this might not be problem, but on Wikipedia it would prove highly contentious. We have to stay neutral, and simply assuming that people all over the world would be comfortable with the term "American cuisine" referring to just the United States is asking for trouble.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally "American" is the term for people and items from the United States; examples include American cars, American culture, American food etc. are the commonly used terms globally, so the term is neutral. The problem arises when you include aboriginal and pre-United States topics, so "Xxx of the United States" is used to differentiate these subjects. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)