Talk:Japanese cuisine

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion - kept

Kept. See archived discussion of January 2008. 07:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

==Japanese cuisine== As above. --Keene 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. bd2412 T 02:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  -ed. —Ruakh_TALK 04:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  Restored. -- Visviva 04:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Carl's arguments above. There is enough genuine crud lying around that we don't need to spend time re-hashing arguments over entries that have a plausible case for inclusion. -- Visviva 04:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Talk:Japanese food, which was discussed together with this term in 2008. --Dan Polansky 07:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

RFD 2011

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Japanese cuisine

survived the worst RFD ever: arguments were "delete, deleted, restored" without any reasons. 3 years later, we may be able to get rid of this total crap. Also Japanese food. --Downunder 14:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, Japanese (or British, French, Austrian, whatever) has a specific meaning in this phrase. The word 'Japan' doesn't tell me what sort of food it is. That said, couldn't we just add that meaning to Japanese, assuming it's not already there? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so it doesn't tell you what sort of food it is. Why should it? This is a dictionary, Wikipedia deals with describing cuisine. And OK, maybe the type of food eaten in Japanese restaurants in western countries is not the same as Japanese Japanese food, but this is not our business. --Downunder 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How could we possibly do the subject justice, except possibly by use of {{only in}}, directing users to our sister project or, better, to a Japanese restaurant? DCDuring TALK 04:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We only have one adjective sense of Japanese. One sense could be "of or relating to a style of cuisine associated with Japan". Ok that's not good wording, but the sense definitely exists. An Indian (Indian-style meal) would be in clear widespread use in the UK, possibly other places too. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have broadened Japanese#Adjective to "Of, relating to, or derived from Japan, its language, or culture." Is that OK?

It isn't just wording, IMHO. I think trying to create separate senses for each individual attribute or set of attributes that might be invoked by using the adjective "Japanese" is such a vain project that it could serve as an exemplar of what seem like terrible approaches to defining. For example, does "Japanese" in "Japanese cuisine" have something to do with rice, or soy, or seaweed, or raw fish, or Zen, or health? How would one write that definition? With respect to carpentry, it would mean "that cuts on the pull stroke"? Is that worth including? Not every dictionary even has Japanese#Adjective. DCDuring TALK 13:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete. Equinox ◑ 13:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now tagged [[Japanese food]], linking to this section. Delete both per Downunder.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete both per above. But Japanese (“Japanese food”) (as in, "let's get Japanese tonight") may warrant coverage at [[Japanese]]. —Ruakh_TALK 23:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Added.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I don't have a strong argument, unfortunately! One reason to keep name places was the linguistic information. In this entry, the linguistic information is important. Two of the translations: Japanese: 和食 (わしょく, washoku) and Chinese: 日本料理 (Rìběn liàolǐ) are not intuitive at all. The first (J) is not SoP, the second (C) is a loanword from Japanese into Chinese, not the usual way of saying adjective + cuisine. As a dictionary, the entry provides this useful information. Consider this before deleting. --Anatoli 02:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This type of argument has been turned down in the past. It must be idiomatic in English. Those translations would need to be indicated elsewhere. DAVilla 13:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep. I suspect this passes the fried egg test. --Yair rand (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Would Japanese saw meet the "fried egg" test? DCDuring TALK 23:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea, as I don't know what a Japanese saw is. The Wikipedia article doesn't explain much. (Possibly related situations: Chinese food is certainly idiomatic, in my opinion, though I don't know whether Japanese food/cuisine has the same style of usage. French toast is a much clearer situation, being clearly idiomatic.) --Yair rand (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep Firstly, I tagged {{rfd}} on Chinese food and Chinese cuisine. I believe we agree that... If Chinese ones are removed, Japanese ones should be removed. If Chinese ones remain, Japanese ones remain. So let me know what is the new point of view from the two previous trials(see [1] in Jan of 2007 , [2] in Jan of 2008). And you, wise people would know the 2008 trial is done by Keene, a banned user. And 2011 trial is done by Downunder, a banned user. I guess this is a kind of their(or his) harrasment to Japanese entries. This is the thrid trial. It's worse than double jeopardy if the WT:CFI have not since changed in a relevant way. --Carl Daniels 21:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change. I repeat, delete all and add the sense to Japanese and Chinese and Indian etc etc etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete please. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet No New Points of view from the past trials([3] of 2007 , [4] of 2008) --Carl Daniels 04:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

deleted. -- Prince Kassad 10:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Result of the voting in the above archived discussion: 8:3:2 for deletion. Delete: Downunder, Equinox, msh210, Prince Kassad, Jamesjiao, Mglovesfun, Ruakh, Internoob. Keep: Yair rand, Anatoli, Carl Daniels. Unclear: DAVilla, DCDuring. DAVilla and DCDuring could be interpreted as supporting deletion, which would turn the score into 10:3:0. In either case, a 2/3-supermajority has been reached with 13 people taking part. --Dan Polansky 07:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)