Talk:Japanese food

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion - kept

Kept. See archived discussion of August 2008. 06:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am copying the discussion into a rfd-passed box below. If I caculate correctly, this is 5.5 for deletion vs 4 for keeping. --Dan Polansky 19:19, 15 April 2011 (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 food==

Japanese + food. SoP. --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)

• No strong objection to the deletion, but, um, the referent is a concrete item (no, I don't mean the rice is rock-hard) not something completely abstract. Could you explain why this class of food is considered sum-of-parts? --Connel MacKenzie 06:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This sense is generally a sense of (deprecated template usage) food. If I used the term (deprecated template usage) Kalamazooan food, you'd know what it meant, even though that's not a term you'd ever heard before. Even so, since there seems to be disagreement about this, I've restored the entry pending fuller discussion. —Ruakh_TALK 14:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete.—msh210℠ 18:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this different from Egyptian pyramid ? Kappa 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Humorous answer: Japanese food isn't as gritty, though an Egyptian pyramid will stay with you longer.

Serious answer: An Egyptian pyramid is a very specific kind of architectural structure, with very few known examples. Japanese food is a broad class of items. --EncycloPetey 02:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And? Kappa 02:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And what? One term is a specific sort of item, the other is a broad class of items. That's a significant semantic difference. --EncycloPetey 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

One year ago, we talked about this word. (see. [1]) We reached the conclusion "Keep". and again we need to talk? I should put out same comment as 1year before.

As far as they have the specific cuisine and the restaurants of their own styles are familliar, yes, we should keep. And there are already entries of Chinese cuisine and Chinese food.

FYI:

• google search with "Japanese food" 1,280,000 hits (currently 2,090,000 hits).
• google search with "Japanese cuisine" 1,050,000 hits (currently 1,220,000 hits).
• google search with "Chinese food" - 1,480,000 hits (currently 5,430,000 hits).
• google search with "Chinese cuisine" - 1,200,000 hits (currently 1,550,000 hits).

If you think Japanese ones violated the wiktionary policy that you think, I think you should tag {{rfd}} to the Chinese ones either. But you didn't. why?

FYI2: wikipedia holds the article of Japanese cuisine

So I'd like to request to revive the deleted word, Japanese cuisine. Thanks --Carl Daniels 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

At least someone is paying attention here. I'm inclined to say that polywords should not be deleted unless there is no reasonable doubt that they are unworthy for inclusion. There clearly is reasonable doubt in this case; ergo, keep. -- Visviva 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How about French cuisine, Italian cuisine, Spanish cuisine, Finnish cuisine, Australian cuisine, French food, Italian food, Spanish food, Finnish food, Australian food and so on? They all get a lot of Google hits. Even Finnish food, when made proportional to the population of the country, gets almost as many hits as Japanese food. That an attribute+noun pair gets a lot of hits does not necessarily mean that it should have its own entry. Hekaheka 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If Hekaheka wants to delete all of them, you should not forget to tag {{rfd}} on Chinese food, and Chinese cuisine. I have already showed the compared results of the google hits above. If you WILLFULLY exclude Chinese ones, I believe Japanese ones also survive. --16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not primarily want to delete Japanese or Chinese or any other cuisine, I just want to be logical. If Japanese food is defined as Japanese style food, it looks like a mother of SoP's to me. Obviously, the other way to be logical is to add the cuisines, foods and kitchens in my list plus a lot of others. The question is, how many of these X-cuisine entries we want, and what added value they bring to Wiktionary or anything else. I don't think anyone would ever want to look for X-cuisine in a dictionary (not that there would be too much harm either). Hekaheka 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I need the logical reason why you didn't mention about Chinese cuisine, and Chinese food. Only Japanese food, and Japanese cuisine have been TWICE tagged with {{rfd}} for the last one year. Who doesn't think it's kinda harrassment to Japanese X? On the other hand, the Chinese ones have NEVER tagged. I need to ask the reason why you excluded Chinese ones.

I did not want harrass Japan, its food or any other aspect of it. I assumed it clear from the context that I'm against all X-foods and cuisines as they add no bloody value. But obviously I'm in the minority and I drop my case. Hekaheka 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "obviously I'm in the minority": That's not obvious to me. I count five not-permanently-banned editors who seem to have supported deletion (you, me, msh210, EP, BD2412) and four who seem to have opposed it (Connel, Kappa, Visviva, and Carl Daniels). That's a bit subjective, though, as not all the editors in question have included explicit votes; I'm not 100% sure about Connel, Kappa, and EP. At the very least it seems to be evenly split, and there might be a 5–2 majority supporting deletion. —Ruakh_TALK 11:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not expressed a decisive opinion, because I don't have one for this particular item. I voted to keep Chinese food, and would vote to keep Mexican food or Indian food, but would vote to delete German food, American food, or Spanish food. I'm not sure that Japanese food has the same lexical issues that Chinese food has, so I'm leaning towards weak delete for this one. — This unsigned comment was added by EncycloPetey (talk • contribs) at 12:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for clarifying that. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 12:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to go logical, then I should ask you... We have "DERIVED TERMS" and "RELATIVE TERMS" in the word collections. Those terminology won't help you? We have chances to reach the X-cuisine. And we can make use of "Translations" either. And even more... When you need to translation Japanese food into Japanese, how do you translate it without the entries Japanese cuisine, and Japanese food into a simple native word? Maybe you'll just translate it to 日本の食べ物. Though there are other simple candidates, 日本食, 和食. How do you reach those words? If we remove those Japanese food, Japanese cuisine, you cannot. In Finnish, you have the simple word eduskunta for Finnish Parliament. Currently we have no entry for Finnish Parliament. Though I believe we should hold it. If you need to translate Finnish Parliament into Finnish with just English knoweldge, we have no chance to translate it to eduskunta. Don't you think so?

Now we have, since I improved the entries parliament and eduskunta.

so I believe wiktionary should have the standard for inclusion "If a word is translated to a simple word in a language, the word should be collected in wikitionary". yes, I know we should bring this talk to Wiktionary_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion. --01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my signature has lacked. And... I have a question, do we condone double jeopardy?(see [2]) we've reached keep on this entry one year ago. --Carl Daniels 17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't consider any decision, including acquittal of a deletion-penalty offense, to be permanent and set in stone; but I think it's a bit of a faux pas to knowingly re-nominate a term that was discussed and that had consensus to keep, unless there's a specific reason (e.g., if the WT:CFI have since changed in a relevant way). —Ruakh_TALK 00:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The "related terms" on that page are not "related" etymologically, so shouldn't be there. I suggest moving it to Appendix:Menus/Japanese. In fact, I'll do that now. Keene2 13:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep If I open a frenchbread shop in Japan, that doesn't make it Japanese food. Language Lover 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing more than a sum of its parts. Also, keeping it would set a bad precedent for entries like Japanese architecture or Japanese culture or other encyclopedic cruft.--♠TBC♠ 11:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Absurd to think of sushi as being "sum of parts" - likewise this way of saying the same thing. --Connel MacKenzie 21:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No consensus; kept.—msh210℠ 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)