Talk:Cuisine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The new listing order is inconsistent, it is a mess! The top level list is arranged by the geographic location from west to east and north to south. That requires the readers to know world geography very well to find the items. Given that average American youths cannot tell Austria from Australia. The new list is not very practical.

There are many other problems with the new organization. Firstly, the list started from America, why not Europe? US-centric is a big no no. Secondly, within the region, the lists are listed inconsistently, some in geographic order, some in alphabetical order.

I prefered the original alphabetical list. Plain and simple. The person who restructured the list should either do a complete job or list some advantages over the alphabetical list!

2002/06/27 Perique The current order has no sense at all. How can you list Croatian and Greek cuisines as Mediterranean but no as European? How can you list Provençal as 'French', and Provençal, Spanish and Italian cuisines as European but not Mediterranean? How can you stuff so many different traditions in French, Spanish or Italian cuisines? Andalusian, Catalan, Provençal, Sicilian and Greek traditions have much more in common!

The use of the word American cuisine for what appears to be for North and South America does not seem correct. It is confusing because the most common meaning of this applies to the US. We could avoid this by not using the word for either the continents or the US. Any objections to renaming this to North and South American Cuisines? Sfmontyo

Contents 1 naming of cuisine articles 2 the intrusion of "Cuisine" content into articles about national cuisines? 3 I am the creator of new cuisine articles and such 4 Is this wrong interwiki?

[edit] naming of cuisine articles

Dmcdevit moved most of the adjective cuisine articles to cuisine of noun, contrary to the majority of links. I moved the bulk of them back, and I'm still on it. I don't see any point in forcing the second form especially because it's often not strictly about countries but about peoples and traditions. --Joy [shallot] 21:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's also a bit of discussion about this at Talk:Chinese cuisine#title. --Joy [shallot] 21:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You definitely should have asked before not after.

As opposed to you who asked... when? :) A biblical analogy about throwing a rock goes here. --Joy [shallot]

Um. I considered your moves good-faith, if misguided, and therefore thought we could engage in a good-faith discussion to reach consensus. But this kind of comment does not appear in good faith. Let's see, I remember raising the issue (before moving) on Talk:African cuisine, where it was agreed upon and moved. Then you moved it back two months later, unilaterally, and said so right under our discussion. I asked on Talk:Austrian cuisine, but never got around to a move, even with one agreement. You commented on the move right under my comment to the contrary on Talk:Chinese cuisine. I asked on Talk:Cuisine of the Southern United States and we developed consensus for the move. I asked on Talk:French cuisine, but no one responded. I asked on Talk:Persian cuisine, with no response. I asked on Talk:Polish cuisine, with no response. I asked on Talk:Russian cuisine, no response. I raised the issue for Nauruan cuisine as well. The reason I didn't move most of these myself is that I never got around to it and it looked like a big job. Not to mention cuisine is not exactly my thing anyway. Now, get feedback from other cuisine editors and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries contributors and see if there is consensus, or move them back. (And don't split up this comment.)--Dmcdevit 29 June 2005 00:37 (UTC)

There are more considerations here besides what the links go to, remember: redirects are cheap. First of all, let me say, that I only moved a few, and that was to the convention that where most articles already were, at "cuisine of X".

I don't get the same impression. We can do a count... --Joy [shallot]

This i basically the same situation as culture (which is about "peoples and traditions"), where we have "culture of x". Not to mention we usually try to avoid nationality adjectives on principle.

Culture is within the Countries WP, so considering that is less relevant because it's out of the scope (many of those articles were created through mass-generated links from country pages, and not independently like cuisine ones, which weren't mass-linked from anywhere, I don't think).

And I don't see why the principle of avoiding nationalities should apply here. Is there an actual reason? --Joy [shallot] 28 June 2005 23:37 (UTC)

Consider this example: let's say I want to find the cuisine article for Kiribati. If we have have all the articles with an adjective construction, am I expected to know that its nationality is "Gilbertese," and not "Kiribatian" or something? Would I be able to find an article more easily at "Gilbertese cuisine" or "cuisine of Kiribati"?

Granted, that's a case where redirects are useful. ;) --Joy [shallot]

Anyway, you should look at most of those cuisine articles first. Most of them are so short that there's no way they deal with the people abroad as separate from residents. --Dmcdevit 28 June 2005 23:18 (UTC)

I think the cuisine of geographic place vs adjective or noun cuisine cannot be effectively resolved without considering what those adjectives and nouns as a whole describe versus the variability in cuisine present in any geographic place. It would be impossible to say effectively what any large city exhaustively considers native to it without AI expert systems researching for us. Where are our AI research programs to help accompany us anyways? That's the real question, lol --Rakista 22:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the intrusion of "Cuisine" content into articles about national cuisines?

I don't understand why the content of this page has intruded into every article about countries cuisines. Wouldn't it suffice to merely link to here? Having that big thing including topics like cheese and pasta has no place on a japanese cuisine page.

This entry should be linked to from the other pages, not incorporated (even in part) into the other pages.

Anyone else agree?

I'm not sure what specifically you're talking about, but it doesn't matter. Go ahead and be bold! It's not likely anyone will object violently. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)

The "cuisine template" is too much. It includes lots of links and structure that are not relevant to pages like japanese cuisine. The first 3 or 4 lines of the template would allow anyone to access all releveant information. Why repeat the same content in 30 entries?

See my reply to this crosspost at Talk:Japanese cuisine#Again, why Is CUISINE a major part of the main page? -- Hadal 5 July 2005 05:24 (UTC)

[edit] I am the creator of new cuisine articles and such

First off, don't you fucking dare put that big honking Cuisine Meta-meta-abortion on my pages. Secondly, lets be friends. I wonder if a more systematic approach is needed in cuisine like the other arts so we leave no stone unturned. I suggest we find listings of peoples and places and list them on a massive page with Cuisine of "blank" so we may look at it and go it is good to go. Opinions? --Rakista 22:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this wrong interwiki?

I'm not good at English, sorry for bad grammer.

On my computer, this article, Cuisine, has wrong interwiki at bn, ko, ja, tr, uk, zh. (Other pages are viewing right interwiki(they're running)). Please cheak about it.

私、英語はとくによく出来ませんので一応日本語にも書いておきます。この文書の、bn,ko,ja,tr,uk,zhのinterwikiがちょっと間違ってるように見えますが、私にだけそう見えるか確認お願いします。ほかのページはよく見えますし、interwikiもよく作動しています。失礼いたしました。--222.233.18.148 15:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)