Talk:Chili con carne/Archive 2

Wrong article name
Should this article be called Chili (stew), to encompass all the variations (vegetarian, Cincinnati)? Calling it "with meat" (con carne) by default does not seem correct as this is not how all chilis are served. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 23:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope. You're succumbing to the etymological fallacy -- the name no longer means what it originally meant due to semantic drift and recipe variations.  I still call my gumbo "gumbo", even though I don't put okra in it, after all.  -Ben (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, no one calls chili "chili con carne". They call it chili. That makes this a clear candidate for the precise title, Chili (stew). &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 11:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not true, yeah people usually shorten it to "chili", but restaurants often will use the term as will commercial manufacturers. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seriously:
 * Ben's Chili Bowl, not Bens Chili Con Carne Bowl. The place serves "chili half-smoke", not chili con carne half-smoke.
 * Hard Times Cafe serves chili, not chili con carne.
 * Chili's serves Soups, Chili and Sides, not chili con carne.
 * These are just three examples. There are a number more that prove the common name of this food item is chili, and as such this article needs to be renamed! Look at this random sampling of menus. You'll certainly find the word "chili", but "carne" just isn't there. Let's use some WP:SENSE here, and use the common name that people actually use to describe this food item.          &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 17:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You looked at every menu at every restaurant that serves chili? You can say that without a doubt that every manufacturer of prepackaged chili doesn't use the term? All I'm saying is that there some that do. Also, there already was a proposed move discussion that failed, if you want go ahead and do up another. I know that consensus changes, but what we have now works. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a random sampling. Come on. The evidence is clear. Go to a diner tonight. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 18:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I work in the restaurant industry and have done so for nearly thirty years, so I am not pulling my comments from the ether. 800,000 hits, 51,000 of which are recipes, for the term are not trivial facts either. You did the right thing setting up a RM. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, chili con carne is a term you'll find on recipes. My favorite recipe has this name. Whoop-dee. But it's still filed under "chili recipes", because people call it chili! &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 19:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1

 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 09:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Chili con carne → Chili (stew) — The common name for this food item is chili, not chili con carne. A sampling of websites above is proof to this point, and I suggest walking into any diner and looking at a menu would result in the same thing. Even if I am "succumbing to the etymological fallacy" about chili con carne, a name like Chili (stew) is more encompassing of the actual varieties of chili. I simply do not see any dispute over the name chili being the common name. That's not original research any more than New York Knicks is the common name over New York Knickerbockers. It simply is true; in common usage I have never heard the term chili con carne (and I used to travel to restaurants nationwide for a living). In summary, the precise name of Chili (stew) seems far more appropriate than something as narrowed-down as chili con carne, which isn't a common term anyway. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 18:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support moving, basically per Timneu22 and Jerem43's comments above. It's more commonly referred to as "chili", and we should go by common name. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 19:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Weakly oppose While it is more commonly referred to as "chili", "chili con carne" is the more formal name -- it's less susceptible to be confused with chile peppers as well avoiding the tedious vegetarian argument that chili did not originally include meat. -Ben (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But the formal name isn't the common name. Again, see New York Knickerbockers, or Bill Clinton versus William Jefferson Clinton. Chili (stew) (the proposed name) is not susceptible to being confused with chili peppers, so I don't understand your argument. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a weak argument, hence a weak vote. Guess I'm just fond of the way it was back when I started editing it. -Ben (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What was it then? (Sorry if that's a dumb question.) &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 20:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was the same as now. -Ben (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as "Chili" is the more common usage by a wide margin. Consider Rhode Island, Warsaw Pact, Hamlet, Germany.  References to "chili con carne cook-offs," while not non-existent, are pretty thin on the ground.--158.111.5.34 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'm sorry? could you please explain what Rhode Island, Warsaw Pact, Hamlet and Germany has to with this? Honestly I'm baffled. walk  victor falktalk 07:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Click one of the links. The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, more commonly referred to as Rhode Island.... again, use the common name, not the full name. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 11:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I should note that you can find 3,130 results for "chili con carne cook-off" on Google, but "chili cookoff" returns more than 4 million results. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 21:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Has anyone consider the WP:ENGVAR issue - this discussion seems to be very skewed to the US.  As for as I can see all the example listed in the section "Wrong article name" and here (for example the restaurant menus and the chilli cook-off stats) are US based.  It is my opinion that chilli con carne is more common in the UK and that in the UK chilli normally refers to a chilli pepper or perhaps chilli powder.  I have no firm evidence for this at the moment (hence this is a comment rather than an oppose) but it does mean that measures like the use of "chilli cook off" may not be appropriate as these are something that don't really occur in the UK and so will only reflect US usage. Dpmuk (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but would someone from the UK confuse Chili (stew) with chili pepper or chili powder? Unlikely. Plus chili con carne would still be a redirect. Plus, the outstanding google results listed above aren't specific to the US or to UK. I just don't see how 4,000,000+ hits versus 3,100 hits makes WP:ENGVAR apply here. Clearly one term is more popular than the other. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I say the reason I didn't !vote is because I haven't researched it enough but I did think it was worth considering and still do. Yes, that is a big difference but given that we don't have chilli cook offs in the UK by definition the vast majority of those hits will be US so it's only really helping find out what's common in the US.  My gut feeling is that Chilli is likely to be the more common usage but statistics like that google result are likely to be skewed towards US usage and so possibly misleading. Dpmuk (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tried to do some "chilli con carne" and "chilli" searches for London and UK (etc) but didn't have luck finding sources either way. In all my times in the UK, chili, as I know in America, wasn't on the menu. But those damn good bangers and mash were! :) &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 23:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything either which is why I think Chilli is most likely to be the common name as chilli just seems to be around a lot more in the US than the UK (no idea about other English speaking countries). Think I'm going to remain neutral on this as although I think Chilli is the common name I'm not sure I can really bring myself to support it given it's not really used in my country. Dpmuk (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind and am actually going to oppose (!vote below). I find the argument that if we must disambiguate then "con carne" is the better way to disambiguate persuasive.


 * Unsure. In principle, I prefer natural disambiguators to parenthesized ones, which would lead me to recommend leaving the article where it is.  But I am sympathetic to the argument that vegetarian chili is not chili con carne.  Powers T 01:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To the extent that my silly argument about vegetarians should hold any weight, it is actually that vegetarian chili is not the origin of chili con carne (as opposed to a variation on chili con carne). This is a mis-perception I have encountered frequently, even here in Texas! -Ben (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A "natural" disambiguation is preferable, usually. However for this article, chili con carne term seems a bit forced, since it is by no means the common name. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 11:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But certainly not to the point of unrecognizability. It's a common name even if it's not the most common name.  Powers T 14:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose At least in those parts of Australia that I have lived "Chili con carne" would be used in full as chili would be referring to the chili pepper. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why the proposal includes a disambiguator, i.e. Chili (stew). —   AjaxSmack   06:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that the dish is commonly called "chili con carne" in Australia and not "chili". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but unless the dish has special ties to Australia, the national varieties of English (WP:ENGVAR) rule wouldn't apply here.  —   AjaxSmack   07:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, but the bit about not changing things unnecessary and sticking with stable usage could well apply if both usages appear to be almost equally common (although I'd agree at the moment there's no evidence that they are). Dpmuk (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, can you provide any proof of it being the common name in Australia? &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 11:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to research "chili" vs "chili con carne" in Australia. Here's a visual comparison of the two: chili alone and chili con carne.  I'm not entirely satisfied that this was a good test, however. -Ben (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, WP:COMMONALITY would argue that if chili con carne is unambiguously used in Australia to refer to this dish while "Chili" isn't, we should use a name that's commonly understood even if it's not the primary name in all varieties. See the "alternate" vs "alternative" example in WP:ENGVAR. -Ben (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LtPowers natural disambiguator argument. If chili con carne sounds forced as a disambiguator to some (it doesn't to me) surely chili (stew) is immeasurably more so. Yes, chili alone may be a common handle but in circumstances where dab is required, con carne is the natural choice and, even for those who wouldn't regularly use the full name, it isn't going to cause any confusion. It's a very small sample, but in my kitchen there are three cookbooks of Mexican/Tex-Mex/Southern USA cuisine, two bought in Texas (the other by a California-based Englishman). In their indexes, one refers simply to chili, homemade but it has no other chili recipes. The other two have numerous chili recipes plus sections on individual ingredients and both disambiguate in the index, naturally enough, with chili con carne. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you admit that chili is the common name, but you prefer something else?? &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 14:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I refer to chili as being a common handle(/term/name, if you like) and not the. Even were it indisputably the common name (which I'm not even addressing), we can not have it as it must be disambiguated. We are thus both of us suggesting "something else" than chili. Your preference is chili (stew) and though this would probably suffice if nothing else existed, it is disadvantaged in regard to the other choice as it is not an already-existent common term or disambiguator. Chili con carne is both a common term and the common disambiguator. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This brings up another problem in the proposed rename: whether "stew" is an appropriate term for chili con carne. To quote Frank X. Tolbert's A Bowl of Red (1953): "As mentioned before, the olden chili makers had a horror of putting tomatoes and onions into chili.  They figured these additions would convert their beloved meat entree into a stew."  This may seem weak, but there's no better authority than Tolbert. -Ben (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there's certainly the argument that "con carne" is not appropriate for chili, which is what I'm proposing. Not all chilis are con carne. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 18:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * However, "chili" is simply an abbreviation of chili con carne -- it's a dish that has had variations introduced (like the vegetarian version), not a dish with an independent culinary tradition (like Cincinnati chili). Semantic drift may have taken place, but even vegetarian chili is firmly rooted in chili con carne.  Are you seriously proposing that the recent introduction of "vegetarian chili" means we must suddenly treat the historical name for the dish as taboo?  Regardless, I'm arguing (in this thread) with the "Chili (stew)" proposed rename target, citing a source that differentiates between chili con carne on the one hand and and types of stew on the other, regardless of "insult".  -Ben (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The primary argument is that chili is the far and away common name as compared to chili con carne. For that reason alone, the article is not named appropriately. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 11:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, talking about chili as if this was the proposed article title misrepresents the reality of this debate. The proposition is not between chili and chili con carne, as you insist on stating, but between chili (stew) and chili con carne and that makes all the difference. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Parenthesized disambiguation makes far more sense here. Readers tend to look past the part of the title. Chili (stew) says, oh, chili, much like people do with similar articles. Frankly, I don't really think it's a stretch to change Chili to Chili (disambiguation) and have this article name be Chili with an appropriate hat note (pepper, powder, other uses). To chili con carne, a reader will say: what the hell is that? It's just chili. That's why this discussion exists in the first place. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 14:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you genuinely claiming that chili con carne is so uttterly obscure a term that any significant number of people, let alone an overwhelming majority, won't recognise it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying it is far too confusing to the average reader. I went to Chili and couldn't immediately tell how to get to this article. The name is flat-out wrong. Maybe I should change my request from Chili (stew) to Chili and do the disambigs like I mentioned above. Chili powder and Chili pepper have natural names. The natural name for this food dish is Chili, not chili con carne. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 14:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if you want users who type "Chili" into the search box to be directed to this article, you should indeed be lobbying for a rename to Chili and the contents of that article to be moved to Chili (disambiguation). -Ben (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is exactly what I'm (now) saying. Looking at Chili, it's clear that none of those terms are truly "chili" except for this article. It's different from, say, Mercury. Should I start a new request-to-move? &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 18:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the proposition that the current Chili article be moved to Chili (disambiguation) but with Chili a redirect to same. Chili powder, pepper and con carne are all "truly chili" with the term chili alone commonly applied to all. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that that's what's being proposed by Timneu22, which makes me think that a brand new move request is in order. Currently there's a clear majority opposing Chili con carne->Chili (stew), and while I suspect a majority would also oppose the alternative, it could pick up a few votes like Mutt Lunker's, is preferred by the editor making the original suggestion, and has a better chance of carrying.  For whatever it's worth, I also prefer Chili it over Chili (stew) (though not over Chili con carne). -Ben (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. User:Benwbrum asked in the edit log when this move request would finish (paraphrased).  In answer to this question, move requests remain open for a minimum of 7 days after which they should be closed by someone uninvolved (more detailed instructions here: Requested moves/Closing instructions).  However there is currently a backlog of requested moves waiting to be closed so it's possible this move request may be open for considerably longer. Dpmuk (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose It's Hamburger, not Burger. "Chilli" is an abbreviation (more precisely an ellipse) of "chili con carne", the original name of the dish. walk victor falktalk 22:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * William Jefferson Clinton is the full original name. Bill Clinton is the common name. Can you provide a better argument? &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 00:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "William Jefferson Clinton" is not the "full original name" of that person (only the "full name"), and "Bill Clinton" is not an abbreviation thereof. Mixing mangoes and papayas here. My argument still stands: do not use colloquial short names, e.g methamphetamine (not meth), cocaine (not coke). walk victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 01:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not colloquial; it's common. Other examples cited above: Rhode Island, Warsaw Pact, Hamlet, Germany. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 01:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is not what is the wp:commomname, but whether "con carne" or "(stew)" is the better disambiguator. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 07:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Despite commenting above that I wouldn't !vote I've changed my mind.  If we have to disambiguate then I agree that "con carne" is the better way to disambiguate, especially given the issues over whether it is actually a stew and the usage in different countries. Dpmuk (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am persuaded the a chili (or rather a chilli) is a more common name for the dish, but (stew) is not the best disambiguator. I find it hard to believe that the majority of people would not understand that a chilli and a chilli con carne are one and the same thing and since I'm not even certain that a chilli IS a stew, I'd stay maintain the status quo.  Worm   13:48, 21 January 2011 (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.

Requested move 2
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived 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. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Chili con carne → Chili — In the previous request, all the "Chili" pages were not considered: the real problem is that Chili is a disambiguation page, when in fact it is the common name of the stew-like dish. Chili con carne is being used as a disambiguator when it is unnecessary. Chili should contain the contents of Chili con carne, with an appropriate hatnote, for the pepper, see Chili pepper, for the powder see Chili powder, for other uses see Chili (disambiguation). The title Chili con carne should simply be a redirect.

Since a chili pepper is a natural name, as is chili powder, it is perplexing why there's a need to make chili anything other than the contents of this page (description of the "stew" or "con carne" dish), as chili is indeed the natural name for it. It certainly does not belong as a disambiguation page by default. Chili (disambiguation) should function for that purpose. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 10:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Chili → Chili (disambiguation)


 * Question - I'm unclear if this is a single requested move or a double one, with the second bit adrift at the end. Is it just Chili con carne → Chili or is it Chili con carne → Chili and Chili → Chili (disambiguation)? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's both - that's how requested moves involving multiple pages are listed. Dpmuk (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, it's both; I'm not a fan of how the template displays the multiple pages. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 13:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it display this way with the intent that a rationale is also given separately for the second move? One can maybe extrapolate the reason for the second move request from the first but it might clarify things to separate the two aspects. The second part of the proposal, as currently displayed, adrift after the signature, would be easy to miss.


 * As an aside (and it's probably somewhat academic) although I'd be against the choice as presented, with the package of two moves, my objection is to Chili con carne → Chili and not to Chili → Chili (disambiguation) per se. As mentioned in the discussion for the previous proposal, I can see some merit in the second move but even then would need some convincing it's truly necessary. As it's both or nothing though, I'm firmly against the proposal. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So if you moved "Chili" to "Chilli (disambiguation)" what would you have at just plain "Chili". We only add (disambiguation) when there is a primary topic.  Hence we wouldn't do the second part without moving something to chili and so these two have to come together.  As for the format issue, that's just how it's set up and there shouldn't be a second rationale.  As in this case the rationale listed should explain the reason for both moves. Dpmuk (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. If that's the case there's no merit in either of the moves in the proposal. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Chili pepper may well be a natural name but no more so than chili con carne - we haven't made up chili con carne just for disambiguation purposes. Going the other way chilli is a shortening of both chili con carne and chili pepper so surely both uses are equally natural. In the UK it is normal to call a chili pepper just chili and use chilli con carne in full (see for example ). Hence I find the argument given in the proposal has little merit. As to the issue of primary topic chili pepper seems to get about twice the number of hits than chili con carne. OK as the disambiguation page has much fewer hits it would appear that not many went through the disambiguation page but it's still suggestive to me that there isn't a primary topic and strongly suggests to me that chili con carne should not be at chili. Dpmuk (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Chili is as much chili pepper as it is chili powder as it is chili con carne. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support; the pepper and the powder are rarely, if ever, referred to as just "chili". Powers T 14:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They very much are. If I'm adding chili to my rogan josh I do not mean that I'm spooning chili con carne into it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That may be the case where you're from, but as I explain it's not the case in the UK. Dpmuk (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the United Kingdom, the pepper is never referred to as Chili pepper but always as Chili.  That appears to be the case for South Asia also.  Chili con carne is often abbreviated to Chili, in the same way that Lancashire Hotpot is abbreviated to Hotpot, but if you want to avoid confusion where the context is unclear, you would use the name in full.  Skinsmoke (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is this even being discussed just one hour after the previous move request was closed.  Are we working on the basis that if you beat people over the head often enough, they will eventually go away and let you do as you please?  Recommend a speedy close.  Skinsmoke (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the first move request was actually done in error. Chili is a more appropriate name than Chili (stew). No speedy close. If anything, the previous one should have been closed early. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 18:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose -- Chili is the vegetable (or class of vegetable) that makes it hot. In UK, I have often bought "chilis".  Furhtermore, I recall being served a chili made without "carne" (meat).  This merely contained beans as the bulk material.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The "without meat" discussion was above; Chili (stew) was being proposed to the current (wrong) title. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 22:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose there's a meaty version (con carne) and a meatless version. There's also generic chili which is neither, but some fast food concoction instead. And there's the vegetable that the restaurant chain is named after (Chili's) 64.229.103.232 (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose - chilli is a berry that grows on plants in the Capsicum genus, mostly varieties of Capsicum annum; chilli powder is a spice prepared from the berries; chilli con carne is a dish that uses either the berries or the powder or both alongside meat in a ragoût. My reference for such is the New Concise Larousse Gastronomique 2007 ISBN 978-0-600-61698-6. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Grab-bag of reasons detailed in the previous move discussion. -Ben (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Srong oppose per my arguments in the discussion above. If there is a primary topic for "chilli", it would be the spice, not the dish. Then, we wust take in account the high number of possible alternative meanings. Currently there are no less than seventeen links on the dab page. For instance, many users might type "chili" when looking for Chile, as it is the name of that country in many languages. We must take into account English's de facto status as lingua franca. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 12:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose If anything has primary claim to the page name "chili," it is the chili pepper, not one of the myriad dishes that is made with it.  --Craigkbryant (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There are clearly too many terms that can be refered to as chili to actually lead to a majority search case under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Breifly looking at the page view statistics chili pepper is the foremost contender to be located at chili based on plurality. Zangar (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.

I'm confused
So when you go to a restaurant and see "chili" on the menu, do you all think "how odd, do they just put a pepper on a plate and serve that?" Powers T 13:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Context. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd surmise that most people don't use the wikipedia search engine when they're in a restaurant - please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Zangar (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could start another move request. Haven't seen nearly enough of them.--158.111.5.34 (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For the bunch of non-US population, Chilli means the vegetable "Chilli pepper". In India and much of South Asia, we buy chillies at a vegetable market in grams. For us, and I understand for much of Commonwealth population, Chillies mean the vegetable and not the stew. rams81 (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Chile colorado
What about chile colorado? That sauce/stew would seem to be the common ancestor of all the US variations, like them red, chili-based, with beef as the most common meat (contrast with the green chili and pork chile verde.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.83.191 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

History
I would suggest that the history of this dish would be improved if some of the facts from the following site were included: http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/Chili/ChiliHistory.htm Acorn897 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Article name
This article should be retitled as "Chili" or "Chile" (disambiguated of course). Chile "con carne" is a specific variety of the dish. The current title sets up nonsensical situations, such as when vegetarian chile is discussed, or with-bean and without-bean varieties are included under the same moniker of chile con carne (which does not have beans). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.146.216 (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See the archives. "Chili" is unacceptable, because in many countries the solitary word is used for Chili peppers, while the stew is always "con carne", which is understandable to Americans. While it is a bit incongruous to cover vegetarian varieties under this title, where else would you put that? And beans are very acceptable in chili (it's the presence of meat that makes it con carne, not the absence of beans). oknazevad (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See the archives: is a long discussion, with the results of the last move request vote/discussion. Ben (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

removal of "complete protein"
The reference for the bit about complete protein from corn and beets actually correctly stated that there is no such thing as combining for "complete proteins" - as it is now very well established that all plant foods contain all essential amino acids - moreover, the protein in all whole plant foods is "complete". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.63.179 (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Chili size
Howdy Herd, I enjoyed the article. Interesting and informative. I offer this tid-bit from my past experiences. I leave it to others for possible inclusion in the main article if useful. "Chili size." A weird term I heard/read occasionally almost always in restaurants and truck stop eating joints. The term referred to usually meant some type or style of meal that could stand on its "own," such as a hamburger patty and a burger bun but served "open faced" without the typical condiments and with heaping helpings of chili of some type piled upon the patty and the other exposed bun that could have a hamburger patty on top of it but almost always at an extra-cost. The same "chili size" term, at times, included a hot dog with chile on top of it but, often, that was a "chili dog" BUT... I did notice a FEW eating joints DID use the term "chili size." Just a bit of trivia that may be useful. But what the heck? This talk page IS rather barren, devoid of written discussion. Have a wonderful week, folks!!!!Obbop (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source, feel free to add something about it. If it is widespread, it should get a mention somewhere. As for this talk page, remember to give new topics their own header and keep on topic (I removed the rambling non-sequitur). As for it's shortness, that's because prior topics were archived automatically. There are links to the archive pages above. oknazevad (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Other Ingredients?
I'm not sure if this section belongs here, as it mostly seems like a rather arbitrary list of different things that could potentially be put into chili. All the things listed can be put into chili, of course, and no doubt all of them have been added by somebody at some point. But unless pineapple or any of the other things listed have some significance as additions (e.g., chili with pineapple as a regional variation) this bit might need to go. El Whizzo (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a week, and as no one has spoken up in defense of this section, I'm taking it out. El Whizzo (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And apparently it's been reverted. I have again removed it, although I'm certainly more than happy to have it stay if someone can show that these "other ingredients" actually are significant variations on the usual chili recipe of meat/beans/spices. Otherwise, though, I see no reason why a seemingly random list of foods has any place in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Whizzo (talk • contribs) 06:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Chili Cook Offs
... might be worth mentioning 62.178.201.108 (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The German language version of the article has an excellent section on Chili cook offs. Ben (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Chili con carne not eaten and uknown in Mexico
I have reformulated my claim into a softer version, but to ask me a source for my claim that in Mexico is not know when I am Mexican and I know that this dish is what strangers think it is eaten in Mexico is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.40.149 (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately your comment is not allowable as it is original research. The primary force behind Wikipedia is verifiability of claims, and "I know about this stuff because I am xxx" is not a valid means to substantiate a claim.--<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * None the less claiming Chilli Con Carne is American just makes Wikipedia look like a laugh stock, and only goes to further devalue it's weight in the world. if enough reliable sources said the Moon was made of cheese Wikipedia would include it. Chilli Con Carne is Mexican always has been and always will. Vexorg (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Find a source and fix it, complaining about the situation does not accomplish anything. Also, sources do not equate reliability. Plenty of sources do state the moon is made of green cheese, but we know that is not the case because those sources are not very reliable. --<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Frankly I can't be bothered to fix it. Why fight Wikipedia's stupid reasoning. Everyone knows that Chilli Con Carne is Mexican, so who cares if Wikipedia says it is American or even Martian. There are too many editors on Wikipedia who would rather follow the flawed Wikipedia regulations to the letter instead of using plain common sense.


 * "but we know that is not the case because those sources are not very reliable" - Proving my point about mentality. You need a reliable source to tell you that the moon is not made of cheese? Hilarious. Truly freaking hilarious, but indicative of the mentality that is ruining Wikipedia. Common sense says we don't ANY source reliable or otherwise to know the moon isn't made of cheese. That and the fact that some of the world's most politically biased media outlets are used as reliable sources then no wonder Wikipedia has a bad reputation. Vexorg (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You should:
 * Relax
 * Breathe
 * Read up on sarcasm
 * Lighten up a little
 * The point of Wikipedia is to keep stuff factual and verifiable, we need to back up claims. That is all.
 * --<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I always think it is funny when someone makes a ridiculous remark (such as Texas style chili contains no beans) and then includes a link to back it up when the link provides no backup to the claim at all. In reality, whether or not there is beans in Texas chili is entirely up to the cook. -- Eric 75.32.53.58 (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else find it ironic that in a single "it's obvious, you wiki-morons!" thread we have one commenter objecting that Chili con Carne is obviously not Mexican, while a second commenter objects that Chili con Carne is obviously Mexican? -Ben (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A textbook case of irony, indeed. And the angry Vexorg doesn't seem to understand that is exactly why we need reliable sources. His supposed "common sense" may tell him that chili is Mexican, but it would be wrong. That's why we don't rely on random editor's common sense. We deal with actual, verifiable facts, not guesses based on being wrong. oknazevad (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Irony in the thread is palpable and the reactions are over the top. --<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ROFLMAO - I'm not angry at all. I'm actually laughing at you pedantics who don't even know what the Wikipedia guidelines are... both of you are bleating on about 'facts', yet Wikipedia doesn't work on 'facts'..... see here  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth . There's a plethora of articles on Wikipedia that contains the utmost nonsense but because it's published by reliable sources it's allowed in Wikipedia.  Patronising Jeremy says "we need to back up claims. That is all." - No you don't, you need to find a source that is deemed reliable. The content doesn't have to be factual. That's the whole point why Wikipedia's value is limited. You just don't get it do you?         Vexorg (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Recently, Chili burger was subjected to an AfD, the conclusion of which was "keep", but apparently with no prejudice against merging the article. Therefore, I'm proposing that the article be merged here.

The reasons I have are:
 * There is no independent notability for chili burger against chili con carne. No sources attesting to the notability of the subject were given or are likely to be given.
 * The article is a WP:PERMASTUB without much opportunity for expansion. Therefore, it is better to roll the information into an article where it can actually be of use, and I note that it is already represented here.
 * Providing endless articles on regional variations and approaches to eating a particular food isn't an especially good way to fragment a topic.

I have notified all participants from the AfD (save one, who appeared to be indefinitely blocked). I have also notified the Food and Drink Wikiproject.

Discussion

 * Support as proposer. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 15:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Sensible proposal. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I support the merging of this with any other suitable article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How about the main page? I mean, the chili burger is a subset of all human knowledge, so it could go there.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  15:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: None of the sources in the article support the theory that the chili burger's notability is derived from chili.  I know because I spent some time researching the subject including looking at articles behind paywalls.  If anything, its more closely derived from hamburger, though its become a specially recognized product of its own, with its own history and culture.  That's why we have the longstanding hamburger template.  Indeed, no one at Articles for deletion/Chili burger other than the discussion starter here, who contributed TWENTY COMMENTS at the AfD, even supported the idea of a merger to chili con carne.  My position won't be surprising to anyone who participated at Talk:Pizza_cheese, but this case is stronger than that one.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  15:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There were a number of participants who supported a merge/redirect, but did not commit strongly to a particular target. I would not oppose a merger to hamburger. But this was my suggestion, hence I'm following through with it. If people would prefer to choose hamburger, that would be OK. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 15:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus was clearly to keep, though you were apparently mistaken on that point and tried to add a "closing argument" to the AfD to that effect, and the closing admin didn't even see fit to respond to you. But of course nothing precludes this merger discussion, except common sense, in my good faith opinion.  A merger to hamburger would be equally bad, but I noted that no one was swayed by your 20 comments at the AfD.  If you studied the scholarly literature on the hamburger, you would see that it would unwieldly to merge the legitimate variation articles all into that topic.  OK now, do we need to notify everyone who participated at the AfD?  Here is my seriously good faith suggestion: drop the merger proposal, and come back in 6 months if you still feel the same about it.  I doubt you will care.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  15:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing an AFD as keep never prohibits a merge discussion. Ryan Vesey 15:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a "good faith" proposal, that's an attempt to sidestep. You saw that most of the !votes were simple WP:ILIKEIT's and very few actually provided a rationale beyond that. The consensus was not clear, as several of the keep voters who did provide rationales also suggested merge/redirects. Consensus is not a vote. In any case, the notability problems of the article (those that I have raised above) were not and are not being addressed by you there or here. If hamburger is not a legitimate target, then go ahead and suggest a way to avoid the creation of WP:PERMASTUBS like chili burger.
 * Everyone has been notified (acknowledging that I somehow managed to skip Sitush, with my apologies). <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 15:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it should not be merged here or elsewhere. The recent AfD for Chili burger made that abundantly clear: merge was an option then, it was raised and it was rejected. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose A chili burger definitely is not Chili con carne. If chili burger was ever merged, it would have to be to Hamburger; although, I would not support that.  The idea that chili burger is a perma-stub is flawed.  First, let's remember that the concept of "perma-stub" is based on an essay.  Even still, one aspect of a perma-stub is that it is not informative.  This article is definitely informative. Ryan Vesey 15:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, Danjel, you did not notify me. Spotted this via a watchlisted user talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Never saw the afd, don't care what happened there. But as a regular watcher of this chili con carne page, I think his is a very poor target for a merge. Chili con carbs is used as a topping ingredient in many foods (chili dogs anyone?), and this article would be overwhelmed if it were to contain all such foods. Hamburger is slightly better, but would be in much the same boat. A chili burger combines two distinct food into a third, distinct dish. Likewise we are not hurt (WP:NOTPAPER) by having three distinct articles. oknazevad (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for a few reasons. First, a chili burger is a variant of a burger, not a type of chili.  Second, it just came off AfD and I think a little more time should be given for development.  There seems to be a bit of a battlefield developing with some of the editors on both sides of the discussion, which I find troublesome.  It is just a small article on a sandwich.  Merge may or may not be the better solution and I don't feel strong enough about it to get in a fight over it, but letting some trivial thing get you wound up isn't good for you or Wikipedia.  While this isn't my rationale for opposing, it is good practice to have discussions in a productive and cooperative environment, rather than a reactive environment with people digging in instead of discussing.  Maybe a 30 day wait to allow for development is a better idea.  I've looked myself, and the sources aren't the easiest to find, so the concern is valid.  I expect to look more. If for no other reason, I think it would be a stronger sign of good faith to do so. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I summed up my reasons in the AfD, and again at the simultaneous merger discussion at Talk:Chili burger, but for those who missed it, here's a recap. The article passes GNG; people who supported keeping it did so because it passed GNG and not because they "liked it".  The notion that this is a permastub was repudiated in the AfD; it can be repudiated further just by looking at the article.  Neither chili con carne nor hamburger are the best of targets.  This is an ill-conceived and POINTy nomination that pretty clearly is going nowhere, so I echo Dennis and say it should be withdrawn  p  b  p  16:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

OK
An editor has contacted me offwiki and suggested that hamburger might be the better target. As I said above, I'm not particularly bothered, although I personally feel that this would be a better target. Therefore, I'm moving the discussion to Talk:Chili burger. I've copied and pasted the above for the sake of not having people repeat themselves. Sorry if my suggesting that it be merged here was seen as precluding another, better target. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 16:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong article?
Can someone explain how this is the "wrong article" for the statement being removed from the lead? Let me point out that the statement summarizes the section "Other dishes made with chili". Ryan Vesey 13:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not. This is the main article about chili con carne, and should be thorough to its many uses. And the lead should summarize the article . While I rephrased it slightly, I reinserted a mention of such dishes in the lead. I fail to see how the existence of articles on such chili-containing dishes renders this the "wrong article" for such mentions. oknazevad (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Mexican?
Can anyone actually provide citations for the idea that chili is at all Mexican? This was recently added to the article with no citations. I've seen lots of references to people outside of the Americas thinking this, but every actual discussion of the origin of chili I've seen from within North America (including by Alton Brown) specifically says that it is not Mexican. Should add that I've also heard that it's not actually served or known in Mexico outside of some tourist areas. 24.4.197.241 (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed. Common mistake by those who make incorrect assumptions that is has to be Mexican. But as you note, accurate history shows its from Texas.oknazevad (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it (probably) orriginated in Texas at a time when Texas was Mexican, made by people who were at the time considered Mexicans... While Texas is most likely the place of origin, describing its "Place of origin" as United Stades is not really correct.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.160.222 (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

discharging firearms

 * The Chili Appreciation Society International specified in 1999 that, among other things, cooks are forbidden to include beans, marinate any meats, or discharge firearms in the preparation of chili for official competition.

One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong. Fundamentisto (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's always funny to me how people will argue that the rules for a chili competition determines that there are no beans in Texas chili. Outside of people who are practicing chili for competitions, nobody in their right mind would make competition chili for regular eating chili.  I have been all over Texas and the number of people who claim that you can't put beans in chili are definitely in minority even if they are ridiculously vocal about it.  Most real Texans like beans in chili.  One thing that I find odd is that on the main page, the claim that Texas chili has no beans links to an article that makes no such claim.  2001:1890:1263:AFD:F81B:80A8:EDBD:853E (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sides?
So what is chili con carne traditionally eaten with? Is it just tortilla chips? Could this be eaten with a buttered bread roll or some such thing? The article does not state how it should be eaten. Trumpy (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no one way it "should" be eaten. That's an overly prescriptive idea that wouldn't belong here anyway (Wikipedia describes what people do, not what they "should" do.) As for describing it here, that's just difficult because there is a million ways to eat chili, all equally valid. Some eat it straight, some over rice, some over pasta (see Cincinnati chili) others as a topping (chili dogs, which are already described). It'd be difficult to describe without becoming inappropriately prescriptive, and the examples would soon overwhelm the article, I fear. So it is probably best that it isn't included. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is described as a "spicy stew", which already tells you it is typically eating alone, in a bowl, but other variations exist. I like mine straight up, or over boiled macaroni, making Chili mac, a dish  needs to start, it seems ;).  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is often eaten with a spoon. North America1000 00:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, wtf
It is not spelt "chili". Wtf is up with this article? 81.153.135.163 (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Chili" is the spelling in N. America. 96.88.249.209 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

LBJ?
Why is there so much information about LBJ's chili preferences, in the Bean section no less? It's a section about chili beans and 1/3 of the content is a paragraph about how "LBJ didn't like beans, he was the president, had a heart attack in the senate, he liked tomatoes and venison in his chili that his wife Lady Bird wrote on cards and also he had a heart attack, here's some facts about Texas Hill Country deer, blah blah blah" what does any of that have to do with Chili beans other than "a famous guy didn't like them"? Maybe LBJ's bio page should have a section called "Chili Preferences" where this information would be relevant, it sure doesn't seem relevant here. Or maybe the Chili page should have a section like "famous people's famous chili recipe standards" and have LBJs little Pedernales River chili biopic listed under there?--24.173.0.66 (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at it, I think you are right. I removed it. oknazevad (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternative spellings
There seems to be no mention for alternate spellings of the dish's name, just searching for "Chilli Con Carne" with 2 L's returns lots of recipes that use this spelling. Considering it's a very American dish I can see why nobody would add this spelling, so is it worth it? Zelpa (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The two-L spelling is more used in Britain, as is the case for the plain "chili/chilli/chile". See the spelling section on chili pepper. Should it be noted here? It wouldn't be out of place, but it's a definite minority usage, so I don't know if it needs to be in the lead. Maybe a small note somewhere. oknazevad (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The "chilli" spelling is used in the UK and India, so that gives us a user total of over 1 billion people, still think that it is minority usage? Solatiumz (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But how popular is the dish (which is the topic of this article) in India? And, as always, I dispute the idea that everyone in India is fluent in English. Only a small percentage of people there speak of natively, mostly learning it as a second (or subsequent) language. And even then the level of ability varies widely. India is not an automatic proof of the dominance of any English usage. And even regarding that, that doesn't change that this article is an American English, so the one-L spelling is used throughout per WP:ENGVAR. We don't need to note the spelling difference at every article that uses the word. oknazevad (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)