Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (country-specific topics)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Use of the term cuisine

Conversation on use of the term Cuisine - started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (cuisines):

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)

The question is: should articles on the cuisine of a country be termed German cuisine or Cuisine of Germany? SilkTork *^YES! 11:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The more appropriate question is: should articles on the cuisine of a country, including the child articles, be termed Xxx cuisine (e.g. German cuisine, German wine and German beer) or Cuisine of Xxx (e.g. Cuisine of Germany, Wine of Germany and Beer in Germany)? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that "cuisine of XXX" is the less desirable choice as it tends to tie the topic almost directly to modern nations. "XXX cuisine" would allow for a flexible treatment of history. This would be especially benefitial when it comes to cultures with origins before the 19th century and the birth of nation-states.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion on this subject, and the common rules that have been in use in the Food and drink WikiProject has been xxx cuisine because cuisines often reach beyond the border of the nation state. With emigration over the past two hundred years, national and ethnic cuisines now exist in multiple countries.

Due to disagreements between contributors over the interpretation of the phrasing in this policy, we have had several problems with naming of the cuisine related articles with most Food and Drink WikiProjects (F&D, Wine and Spirits) using the xxx standard while the Beer WikiProject uses the Cuisine of xxx standard. The primary issue is over the first caveat, specifically the former camp argues the caveat applies because of the spread of the cuisine outside of the borders of the original nation-states while the latter argues that cuisine articles should stay narrowly focused on the country of origin.

The xxx cuisine side has been summed up using this argument:

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 wine/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.

The Cuisine of xxx side has not put forth a summarized argument for its reasoning, and it would be wrong for me to try to do so as I could easily misrepresent that point of view.

I would state that in earlier discussions on this subject, 3 of the 4 contributors have sided with the xxx cuisine side. That said , only five individuals contributed to the discussion, which is not enough to develop a good consensus on the subject. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on disambiguation of TV articles

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RFC: What disambiguation should shows from the United States and United Kingdom use?. Additional participation is welcomed. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft RFC regarding the articles titled in the form "Country-Country ..."

This is in the context of comments made at this Talk:Austria–Russia relations#Requested move 2 January 2022 RM, where an oppose voter recommended an RFC be held.

Which format should articles regarding bilateral relations use:
A. Use adjectival or combining form of the countries name when they are available and natural (eg, German-Icelandic relations, Franco-German relations)
B. Use the nounal form of the countries name throughout (eg, Germany-Iceland relations)
C. Consider each article's common name; do not apply a uniform format

Any thoughts? BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Super Dromaeosaurus, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; pinging for input. BilledMammal (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Before voting, I would like to know if for example the adjectival form is popular not only in relevant relations like France and Germany but in other more obscure ones like, say, Italy and Albania or Vietnam and Laos. Are there any trends on reliable sources, possibly with exceptions in some cases? We cannot go from one strict format to another without knowing if there are exceptions to the rule. Super Ψ Dro 11:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Note this is a pre-RFC discussion to ensure the wording is appropriate, rather than an RFC itself. However, yes - more obscure ones also tend to prefer the adjectival form, and in cases where they do not the adjectival form remains popular; Italy and Albania is an example of the former, while Laos and Vietnam are an example of the latter (see also Germany and Iceland, which I didn't check before making it the example). BilledMammal (talk) 11:42, 3 Januar

Three points: (a) I'm not sure about what you mean by option "C", "common format for the grouping". Do you mean there would be something like a WP:COMMONNAME that could be determined for the whole set of bilateral relations together? I'm not sure that's possible. In my understanding, WP:COMMONNAME is basically always something you determine individually, so basically I see no difference between options C and D. (b) I'm not sure about what you have in mind with your introductory "exception of articles whose titles is a proper name", could you clarify? (c) I'm also not sure this is the best place for this RfC. The guideline page currently has nothing to say about this particular class of articles, and what guidance we've had up to now was hosted at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)y 2022 (UTC)

And, sorry, two more points: (d) option A needs to be qualified from the outset, by saying that adjectival forms should be used where they are available and natural. Otherwise we're setting this option up for immediate failure, because people will immediately point out that some countries (e.g. the US or Trinidad and Tobago) don't have adjectives, so we can't use them throughout anyway. (e) we need to keep in mind that there is a distinct third option available for some country pairs, the latinate compound adjectives of the type "Anglo-French", "Austro-Russian", "Greco-Turkish". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, the proposal isn't limited to just the bilateral relations articles, as I've seen a few other examples where the title is not a proper name but uses the "Adjective-Adjective" form, or less frequently, uses the "Noun-Noun" form. For example, German–Soviet Axis talks (ngrams), and Belgium–Germany border (ngrams). I've expanded it to this as we would have a consistency problem if we had "German-Belgian relations", but "Germany-Belgium border", and I don't see a reason to limit it, though you may see otherwise?

With this addressed, in response to (a) the explanation is that all articles between, for example, Belgium and Germany would use "Belgian-German"; the goal of C would be to achieve consistency between those articles, though perhaps it will just distract from the RFC?

In response to (b) in the context of the above, the explanation is that we if an article is at a proper name it would not be appropriate for us to alter the proper name in either direction - for example, the Anglo-Dutch War should not become the "United Kingdom-Netherlands War", nor should the Egypt–Sudan Railway Committee become the Egyptian-Sudanese Railway Committee.

In response to (c), I believe this is the best place as if there is a consensus we will need to document it, and this page seems like the most appropriate as it already discusses a related subject.

In response to (d), that is a good point, particularly in regards to Trinidad and Tobago. I've updated the proposal.

In response to (e), another good point; I've updated the proposal to include this as well. BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to open the RFC shortly, but before I did that I thought I would ask if it would be preferable to narrow the scope to articles about bilateral relations, and things such as borders can be addressed later? I believe it would be better to address the whole group, but if others think otherwise I have no objection. BilledMammal (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it would be better to restrict it to the bilateral relations ones. That's a compact, coherent group of articles where so many people have been going on and on about consistency (and the consistency we have now was historically pushed through by brute force), so that's really where the issues are, as far as I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Updated. I've also updated the text of option C in order to make it clear that it is functionally different from B. Any final thoughts before I open it? BilledMammal (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, just a few more nits:

• in option A, can we include an example of what is meant by "combining form"? I suppose you mean the latinate compounds like "Franco-Italian", right?
• in option B, should we add "throughout"? It is obvious that some country pairs will retain the noun compound forms because no alternative is available.
• in option C, can we change "do not apply a consistent format" to "do not impose a uniform format"? I have the feeling that the present wording is a bit self-defeating, as "don't be consistent" will be a red flag for the WP:CONSISTENCY afficionados. For anybody who would advocate for C, the point would be that a solution is not "inconsistent" merely because it's not uniform. Applying WP:COMMONNAME consistently is being consistent. Also, it would be good to mention WP:COMMONNAME as the relevant criterion under which each case would be considered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

For A, added; I do. For B, added; makes sense. For C, altered, and added; they are both excellent points. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)