Talk:History of Indian cuisine

Requested move 18 July 2018

The following is a closed 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: moved. (non-admin closure) KSFT ^(t|c) 19:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

---

History of cuisine from the Indian subcontinent → History of Indian cuisine – Undiscussed page move that occurred in 2011.[1] The current title makes no sense and was never discussed and will likely fail a page move request if page move request was filed, just like this one. ML ^talk 18:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• • Comment there is another term available, "South Asia", instead of either "India" or "Indian Subcontinent" -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 7 years is too long for such a technical request. An RM discussion is in order. And I agree that South Asia is like a preferable term. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

    Yep, though we do tend to do cuisine articles on a national basis. Not necessarily a perfect idea. It's a cultural thing, so I would think national articles get closer to reality than broad geographical ones. If there's essentially no difference between Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, etc. cuisine, then Indic should work, with redirects. I would expect that to be arranged with common-to-them-all stuff up top, then some national or regional divergences in subsections.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

    • Reverting to the original title is the only way to go. Any page move request is only going to waste time. Look at the results:-

"History of Indian cuisine" has 5,72,000 results on Google searches and 1,750 results on Google books. (Original title)

"History of cuisine from the Indian subcontinent" has 1 result and 0 on Google books. (Current title)

"History of South Asian cuisine" has '41,800 results and 478 results on Google books. (Undiscussed title)

Do I have to mention WP:COMMONNAME? This would alone lead to WP:SNOW close as "History of Indian cuisine". Original title ("History of Indian cuisine") is still the most common name by a long shot. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE. Only because this page became part of a drive-by POV page moves about 7 years ago, doesn't means there is any consensus in Wikipedia or outside Wikipedia that such uncommon title has gained acceptance. Lorstaking (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have sent this to a requested move regardless. The subject is clearly contentious to some and would benefit from a consensus being formed to prevent future problems with the page title. Additionally the page spent a long time as History of South Asian cuisine and it not clear how this is being addressed. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Support/Oppose proposal

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Nearly 6 million results vs 42k results vs 1 result is a very broad margin. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME results provided by Lorstaking. Plus, the article is similar to history of India, as it concerns the area and history before the partition of India, and not the current nations as noted in the article itself. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC))
• Support The proposed name passes all the criterias of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. People are more likely to use the term India when searching, compared to Indian subcontinent. The sources also highly prefer History of Indian cuisine compared to the current name (based on the search results provided by Lorstaking). Proposed name is more precise and concise. It is also more consistent since we have History of India which covers the history of the subcontinent. Pratyush (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per above Shrikanthv (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. 'History of Indian Cuisine' is more appropriate and concise.Rao Ravindra (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

History of pakistani food

Girl 110.39.164.21 (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

awful article

I am an occasional editor and have yet to run into an article as poorly written as this. "Unique molecular taste and richness of spices" This is not real science (it's barely even English). Unique means "one of a kind" which Indian cuisine is not. It is one of many - all of whom use molecules and most also use spices. How is there no discussion of regional differences. Do people from Tamil Nadu enjoy the exact dishes as those from Maharashtra? "Western cuisine tends to pair similar molecular flavour compounds, which is why it tastes bland" Oh? are we food critics now? "From circa 4500 to 1900 BC the rulers of Lower Mesopotamia were Sumerians who spoke a non-Indo-European and non-Semitic language, may have initially come from India and may have been related to the original Dravidian population of India." How is this related to the topic? Is it reasonable that Indian cuisine influenced Thai and Filipino kitchens but no foreign cuisine influenced Indian cooking? (Answer: hardly)

How is there no mention of the immense influence of the Mughal invasion on food and cooking on the subcontinent? This page reads more like a nationalistic tourist brochure than a proper Wikipedia entry. I don't really have the knowledge (or time, or proclivity) to re-write this page. But it definitely needs work. 147.235.201.64 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)