Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina cuisine

Gallery
What is particularly Bosnian about the dessert displayed in the gallery? Since there's no caption, it's difficult to tell exactly what it consists of, but it looks like a fairly standard plate of fresh fruit (including some rather un-Bosnian kiwi) with ice cream with undefined pastes, mushes or something like it. If it's just a fairly standard Western restaurant dessert, it might as well be removed from the gallery.

Peter Isotalo 14:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And the "strawberry dessert" in the Dessert section? Or the anonymous "Gourmet Bosnian dish" in the Gallery? Etc. Should not they all be excised? As to your removal of the fruits and vegetables photo, I would actually suggest keeping it: very colorful and relevant as "raw material" for Bosnian cuisine. --Zlerman (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the colorful fruit image can be re-added if the article has "ingredient section". --Caspian blue 15:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the relevant criteria is whether they show something truly relevant to the article topic, not whether they're colorful or not. The picture of the fruits 'n' veggies, other than being pretty look at, has little or nothing to say about something as specific as Bosnian cuisine. It contains products that can be acquired in just about any decent-sized market in Europe from Cork to Thessaloniki.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The images are all gone for copy violation (the uploader was indefinitely blocked), so any suggestion for gallery is moot now.--Caspian blue 13:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2020

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. BD2412 T 23:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

– To be consistent with the 100+ other articles in the form " cuisine". See discussion on Luxembourgian cuisine. jamacfarlane (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina cuisine → Bosnian cuisine
 * Botswana cuisine → Botswanan cuisine
 * Dominican Republic cuisine → Cuisine of the Dominican Republic
 * Hong Kong cuisine → Hong Kongese cuisine
 * Cuisine in Toronto → Torontonian cuisine
 * Cuisine of Karnataka → Kanarese cuisine
 * Cuisine of Mauritius → Mauritian cuisine
 * Liechtenstein cuisine → Liechtensteiner cuisine
 * Cuisine of Guinea → Guinean cuisine
 * Cuisine of Lesotho → Basotho cuisine
 * Cuisine of Corsica → Corsican cuisine
 * Cuisine of Niger → Nigerien cuisine
 * Cuisine of Equatorial Guinea → Equatorial Guinean cuisine
 * Cuisine of Tuvalu → Tuvaluan cuisine
 * Cuisine of Sardinia → Sardinian cuisine


 * Toronto => Cuisine of Toronto or Toronto cuisine (edited) Consistent with 'History of', 'Politics of', etc. If you look at Category:Cuisine_by_city, Toronto cuisine would be more consistent with the titles in that category. But Torontonian cuisine is inappropriate as it is very multicultural and the article is not about a style of cuisine per se, French and Italian and other cuisines are very common. Alaney2k (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree Toronto should be taken out of this list to maintain consistency, and the adjectival form should be restricted to national styles of cuisine. jamacfarlane (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Disagree strongly The existing "Cuisine of ..." titles are just fine, and are probably a better general pattern. They are better than using clumsy or unusual adjectives like 'Hong Kongese', 'Equatorial Guinean', 'Basotho' (I suspect that this isn't even technically correct), 'Liechtensteiner', and 'Kanarese' (which is apparently mostly used for the language Kannada rather than the state Karnataka), many of which rare or unfamiliar and lend themselves to confusion, like 'Nigerien' (easily confused with Nigerian). Recall that WP:NAMINGCRITERIA emphasize recognizability and naturalness over technical correctness.
 * There are certainly some cases where the adjectival form is perfectly natural, like French cuisine, Japanese cuisine, and so on. I do not propose changing these. Though even there, we have reliable sources for the "of" form, like George Lang's Cuisine of Hungary and Diana Kennedy's Cuisines of Mexico.
 * Though consistency is an important goal, it is only one of the five goals listed in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. I'm fine with having some articles be adjectival, where that is familiar and natural (French cuisine, Japanese cuisine) and others being "of" (Cuisine of Lesotho, Cuisine of Niger, Cuisine of Karnataka. --Macrakis (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Disagree strongly (on different grounds) with Torontonian cusine. Unlike the others (as mentioned above), the article is not about a single cuisine in any sense, but rather the variety of cuisines found in the city. This is similar to Cuisine of New York City. In both cases, the parallelism with, say, French cuisine or Levantine cuisine breaks down. The former are defined simply as a collection of cooking traditions in one geographical location, while the latter are fairly well-defined repertoires of dishes and tastes which can be found world-wide, including in Toronto and New York. In fact, I'd argue that "cuisine" is the wrong word here entirely. I would prefer something like Food in Toronto. --Macrakis (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: to be WP:CONSISTENT with what exactly? The Luxembourg article was closed with a move to Cuisine of Luxembourg. BLAIXX 19:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To be consistent with the 100+ other articles in the form " cuisine". The Luxembourg article was moved by exception given that there was not an adequate adjectival form. jamacfarlane (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend expanding on that and including it in your move rational. What you have now is unlikely to convince anyone. BLAIXX 16:36, 6 April 2020 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.