Talk:Panini (sandwich)

RfC: panini or panino?
Within the article body, should the topic of this article be referred to as panino or panini? Please refer to prior discussion at for relevant arguments. Please note that this is not a request for comment on the article title, which was established above. Ibadibam (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
Clearly it would be absurd to have a grammatical inconsistency between the title and certain captions which currently use panini as the single, as established in the now closed RfC above, and the subsequent usage within the article. There is no current acceptable precedent within the article, as the usage is inconsistent. Therefore this RfC must come to a definitive conclusion as to whether panini or panino is the more commonly used singular term within the English language, and that decision should then be consistently reflected in all usage of the term, including the title of the page. Py0alb (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The title is grammatically ambiguous, due to the varied usage of the word—the very cause for this discussion. As has previously noted here, while we prefer the singular in article titles, there are exceptions. I suggest that this is an excellent case for an exception to WP:SINGULAR, due to the controversy over the usage of the word (a controversy that extends well beyond this discussion, after all), and the lack of a clear preference in reliable sources or usage data. Given this, I believe 's solution—avoiding the issue entirely by using only the plural form—to be not only the most palatable, but the best way for us to avoid disruptive edits in the future by editors who feel strongly one way or the other. Ibadibam (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Using only the plural form does not avoid the issue at all. If the article has a sentence like "Panini are Italian sandwiches", that would clearly be following the panino/panini usage, not the panini/paninis usage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the panini/panini paradigm that others suggest is more common than panini/paninis? Ibadibam (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point—I didn't realize that that usage existed, but after looking at Google News, it seems to be more common than I would expect, so the plural compromise seems acceptable to me. I still think that following the panini/paninis usage is preferable, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The manual of style says "Use the appropriate plural; allow for cases (such as excursus or hanif) in which a word is now listed in major English dictionaries, and normally takes an s or es plural, not its original plural: two excursuses, not two excursus as in Latin; two hanifs, not two hanufa as in Arabic." You could easily add "two paninis and not two panini as in Italian" to that list. So that solution is not going to work. It HAS to be panini/paninis because that reflects the most common usage. Py0alb (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me you are trying to regularise/ize English spelling? Sources are inconclusive, opinions are divided. It will be whatever we work out through consensus, not what any one editor dictates, no matter how firmly his heart tells him that he alone is right. --Pete (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Except sources aren't inconclusive, and opinions aren't really divided. Its just one or two disruptive editors attempting to impose their prescriptive linguistic preferences onto the encyclopaedia. Py0alb (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The title is not grammatically ambiguous. If it were plural it would be Panini (sandwiches). Panini (sandwich) is clearly the singular form. Besides, this very issue was discussed and a consensus reached some 8 years ago. This RfC needs to decide once and for all what IS the accepted singular form in English, and if we're going to over-rule the previous consensus, we're going to need damn good evidence to do so. The below discussion will establish whether or not that evidence is forthcoming Py0alb (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please let me suggest that editors who object to using the plural in the text make a list of the occurrences on the page where they feel that it is necessary to use the singular. Perhaps there are ways to rewrite those sentences as "panini are", or perhaps such a list will demonstrate that always using the plural will not be workable. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The subject matter should be referred to in whichever tense is most logically appropriate. In the vast majority of cases, that will be the singular. The first sentence for example, should start "A PANINI IS". Where it is referred to in the plural, it should be referred to as "paninis are". "Panini are" is ungrammatical as it combines a singular noun with a plural verb. Py0alb (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Panini. Panino is essentially unused in english. The english word, borrowed from the Italian, is panini to which the plural is paninis. It's worth mentioning the etymology from panino but the common usage, in the UK at least, is panini. The article should prefer that form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 08:02, April 29, 2016
 * Panini. Lets not be disingenuous here: a consensus view that the page be named panini in preference to panino IS a consensus view that the topic of the article be referred to as panini in preference to panino. I think you're splitting hairs unnecessarily. As the above poster said, panino doesn't exist in standard English usage. There is really no reason to discuss this all over again when a clear consensus has already been agreed. Py0alb (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You would think so, since the article title is so often the form used within the article body, but this is not universal across all Wikipedia articles, nor is it even mentioned at Article titles or Requested moves/Closing instructions. The title of an article is usually the most recognizable form, but not necessarily the preferred term in running text (cf. Cat Stevens, where different names are used, corresponding to the phase of his career). In this article, there was a change immediately following the move. As the article was expanded over the following few months, panino was used in the article body. The usage of panino has now been stable in this article for eight years, and contributors to the earlier discussions have argued that this form is indeed used in English. Ibadibam (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Panini per previous comments. fredgandt 13:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Panino – Google Ngrams data up to 2008 show a clear preference for "a panino" over "a panini" in British English, and in American English until 2001. Data for "panino" vs "paninis" also show a preference for panino in British and American English, albeit not as clearly (I admit this is an imperfect comparison, since it compares two extremes and excludes uses of panini as an irregular plural/singular). Google Trends data for the same comparison is inconclusive for British English, and shows a preference for panini emerging in the US in the late 2000s. (Note that I am excluding a comparison between panino and panini alone because this does not distinguish between uses of panini in the singular and plural.) With respect to dictionaries, we have Oxford in support of panini for both British and US. Merriam-Webster, Random House and American Heritage prefer panino, somewhat in contradiction to Google's data. Are there any others worth looking at? In any case, it would appear that panino is more common than has been anecdotally claimed above. Given the data, I'd say that switching to panini in the singular is a bit recentist, and is also a borderline case of MOS:RETAIN. Another point is that using panini may lead to a greater frequency of disruptive edits by grammar mavens correcting what they perceive as a grammatically incorrect form. All that said, I think we should continue to monitor usage in sources, as the balance may tip more clearly in favor of panini in several years. Ibadibam (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Google ngrams shows a clear and unarguable preference for paninis and "a panini" over "a panino" both historically and currently: See here: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=a+panini%2Ca+panino%2Cpaninis&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Ca%20panini%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Ba%20Panini%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Ba%20panini%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ca%20panino%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cpaninis%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BPaninis%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bpaninis%3B%2Cc0
 * Panini compared to panino isn't even a fair comparison. The word panino barely registers at all: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=panini%2Cpanino&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cpanini%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BPanini%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bpanini%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPANINI%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cpanino%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bpanino%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPanino%3B%2Cc0
 * This really is a non-discussion. Every single piece of evidence, every single Wikipedia policy, is in favour of correctly reporting and using panini as the standard singular form Py0alb (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In the ngram searches I linked above, I tried to filter out unrelated cases by setting narrower search terms. The ngram searches you've done here are more likely to include unintended results. By performing case-insensitive searches, you're including uses of the word as a proper noun (consider the many cases, in diverse fields, listed at Panini (disambiguation), compared to the the narrower, relatively obscure cases at Panino (inhabited locality)). Note that the historical preference you've highlighted in your first search is only for the capitalized case, "a Panini". And your second search combines uppercase and lowercase, without any context that might help restrict results only to the relevant, food-related cases. Ibadibam (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's simply untrue - I included the comparison for "a panini" and "a panino", and the capitalised version is clearly counted separately. "a panini" is significantly more common in English usage than "a panino" both currently and historically. I suggest you look again at the links. Py0alb (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the chart is displaying differently for you than for me, but in the first I see a case-insensitive search for a panini,a panino,paninis, with one line for each term, and in the second I see a case-insensitive search for panini,panino, again with one line for each term. "Case-insensitive" would mean that all capitalization options are combined into a single result. If you remove "paninis" from the first search, "a panini" and "a Panini" become separate, and you can see that the historical preference for -i is for the proper name, and the common, lowercase name, presumably referring to the sandwich, is a more novel phrase. Ibadibam (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We should bear in mind here we're talking about a word and a type of sandwich that has only become common in the Anglosphere for the past 10 years or so. Recentism doesn't apply to terms that simply didn't exist in that language 20 years ago Py0alb (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We've already achieved consensus, this is for Panini. Currently this discussion is a one man crusade against a previous consensus and so far an otherwise unanimous vote against. I'm going to leave this until tomorrow, and unless something significant happens, I'm going to ask you to revert your edits and politely withdraw from this discussion. I don't want to have to take this to ANI and hand out warnings, but if that's what has to happen, that's what will happen. Py0alb (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it oversimplifies it to stretch a consensus on the page name to apply to a broader usage question. If there were consensus for that, the article would have been using panini for the last eight years, which it hasn't (though you might ask why they kept it as panino back in 2008). I also entreat you to let the RfC process work, and not make threats about running to the administrators after one day of discussion simply because I'm arguing a contrary position. Ibadibam (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're arguing a position contrary to every single other poster and contrary to the previously established consensus. This is entirely your right, but you need to accept that you don't have the right to ignore consensus when editing Wikipedia: you have already ignored the consensus in your edits and this in itself is a serious offence, whether you like it or not. Please don't edit war over this, I'm sure you will agree its not worth you being permanently banned over. Please stay calm and accept the consensus view Py0alb (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to my name being taken in vain by : it's hard to recall now what was going on in 2008, but, as best I can, I think that we were at that stage still trying to influence general usage in favour of "panino" (because that is the Italian singular, and there still seemed a chance of it winning the day). My view has, however, since changed.  I now think that "panini" has for better or worse become the generally used English singular and the battle is lost.  As with "agenda" and a number of other non-English-form plurals we need to give way now and accept the inevitable.  I know that "spaghetto" appears in Wiktionary; but it is just too late...  Deipnosophista (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies,, I meant no offense by mentioning you, and was only hoping for a little background. Thanks very much for taking the time to chime in and recollect an eight-year-old discussion and edits. Ibadibam (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Py0alb: regarding your comment "ask you to revert your edits and politely withdraw from this discussion" - this is simply uncalled for. The only occasions for which we will redact comments is if it is trolling, harassment, threatening, or meat/sock-puppetry. An editor simply stating his or her opinion and providing justification for that opinion is not grounds for such action. Further, escalating to ANI would be fruitless, as there's no grounds for action. The fact that you're asking the editor to self-revert (instead of doing so yourself) is inconsequential; the end result is the same, you're telling an editor they are not welcome on a discussion page. This is unacceptable; please engage in discussion about the topic, not about the individuals involved in the discussion. Mind  matrix  16:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Editing in clear contradiction of an established consensus view is a breach of protocol and an administrative matter. It doesn't matter how long the anti-consensus viewpoint had been missed, the point is, once the consensus viewpoint was re-instated (by myself in this instance), any subsequent reversion of that was editing against established consensus and subject to disciplinary action. I have tried to explain this as clearly and politely as possible. Wikipedia protocol states that the page should continue to use "a panini" as this was the established consensus, until a new consensus is arrived at that overturns that conclusion. Py0alb (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You ignored the central theme of my comment: asking others to withdraw from a discussion is not acceptable. Mind  matrix  15:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't need a discussion on this, it says loud and clear above. "Done - consensus below for a move to Panini (sandwich). Neıl ☎ 15:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)". The consensus included both the naming of the page and a decision about the usage of the term in English. To establish a consensus on the correct linguistic terminology that applies to the title of the page automatically applies to the content. No new evidence has been brought forward that contradicts that consensus. Further discussion of this topic is pointless obfuscation, unnecessarily prolonging this absurd argument is bordering on disruptive editing Py0alb (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Consensus can and does change. We are having a discussion on a question last examined eight years ago, and this RfC should run its course. Attempting to dissuade other editors from contributing is disruptive. Please desist. --Pete (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Consensus changes when convincing new evidence is brought to the table. Bring forward some new evidence, and the consensus will change. Until then, protocol states we stick with established consensus. Py0alb (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I presented several new points in my !vote comment above, backed by a variety of sources, which you have yet to address directly, except to present a other evidence, which I've reviewed above. So I think it's a bit unfair that you'd say there's no new evidence. Ibadibam (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The WP:CONSENSUS policy page mentions nothing about "convincing new evidence". It is entirely up to the editors participating in discussion, and good factual arguments hold more water than just making stuff up. I suggest you read the page. Cheers.. --Pete (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My previous comment consisted of one sentence, and your reply completely avoided what I wrote. Mind  matrix  21:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In case you missed my post in an earlier thread (regarding the closed page move discussion), I'll repost it in this one: "That discussion established no such consensus. Specifically, it resulted in the current page title, but there was no consensus about usage, as almost all responses involved personal opinions and anecdotes. There was no data presented by either side (other than one regarding Google hits for 'panino' and 'panini', which is not usable as a deciding factor on its own). That is not how consensus is established." The absurdity is persistently stating there was a previous consensus when no such consensus was ever achieved or noted. Mind  matrix  21:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss your posts, in fact I already replied to it. You don't agree with the consensus that was reached. That is unfortunate, but that doesn't change the fact that consensus as to the preferred usage of Panini over panino WAS reached and officially verified by an administrator. Perhaps if you have a time machine, you can go back and try to argue your case. But to deny that a consensus exists simply because you don't personally agree with the decision is inadmissible. I don't know whether you are some kind of "higher level" administrator that can automatically over-rule the established decisions of other administrators? Perhaps you could clarify this? Py0alb (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * in fact I already replied to it: No you didn't. My comment of 6 May 2016 in this thread is the last comment of the thread. That is the comment I reposted. Mind  matrix  23:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already stated that consensus is not established when neither side presents data to support their argument. The page move discussion consisted entirely of opinions and anecdotes, nothing more. Also, please quit the passive-aggressive commentary. Mind  matrix  23:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also urge you to not make assumptions about other editors positions on a subject. Although I did state a position in the page move discussion years ago, I did not state one in this discussion. For the record: In English, 'panino' and 'panini' are both used in the singular, and 'panini', 'paninis', and rarely 'paninos' are used for the plural. The use of these terms varies by region, and the etymology section should reflect that. Article-wide, the term 'panini' probably should be used as the singular term, but as I've said, nobody has made a compelling argument for either position so far. Regarding your comments "You don't agree with the consensus that was reached" and "to deny that a consensus exists simply because you don't personally agree with the decision is inadmissible" - this is incorrect, as I've stated several times now that no consensus was reached, hence there is no position with which to agree or disagree. Mind  matrix  00:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly, we need to be consistent in our language usage. It would be absurd to have the title of the page as "panini", and then refer to the subject as a "panino" throughout the rest of the text. We have an etymology section that discusses the various usages of the word, the important point here is to decide the primary usage for the majority of the text. Obviously, that should reflect the most common usage in the English speaking world. I don't think anyone here (correct me if I am wrong) is actually claiming that panino is more commonly used than panini. Even Ibadibam admits this to be the case. Its not up to wikipedia to educate people on what some editors think should be the correct form. Its up to wikipedia to reflect current usage. All evidence - both the experience of every editor that has commented so far, the google ngrams and the google trends data, shows that "a panini" is by far the most common usage. That is what was concluded in the previous discussion, nothing has changed in the intervening time, and there is really no need to discuss this any further. Py0alb (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly, we need to be consistent in our language usage. Our Cattle article, for example, has a plural title, yet refers to "cow" throughout. Why should this article deviate from the established norm? Seriously, Py0alb, if you continue to push for this discussion to be shut down, you are likewise pushing for sanctions to applied to you in order to allow discussion to continue freely and amicably, as per policy. --Pete (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone agrees that "cattle" is the correct plural and "cow" is the correct singular. That is not the case here. As far as I can see, although some people have expressed opinions that they not like the fact, everyone here agrees that "panini" is the standard common usage for the singular tense, and "paninis" for the plural. No-one is trying to shut down the debate, but unless anyone wishes to dispute that fact, we appear to have reached some kind of consensus. Py0alb (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * …everyone here agrees that "panini" is the standard common usage for the singular tense, and "paninis" for the plural. On examination of the responses given here, we find that this is not the case. I, for one, do not agree with your statement, whis is therefore demonstrably false. --Pete (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You honestly, and in entirely good faith, think that more people go into a sandwich shop in UK/US/Australia etc and ask for a " cheese and ham panino" than a "cheese and ham panini"? You must live on a different planet to me Py0alb (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly we have different perceptions. Personal attacks do not negate the falsity of your statement above. You claimed something, I demonstrated that it was untrue, and now you refuse to admit your error. Your falsehood is somehow my fault. I'm sorry, but this does not work for me. I now see you as attempting to insert untruths into Wikipedia and rejecting all alternate voices. That is not how we do things here. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I have literally no idea what you're talking about here. Perhaps you could attempt to rephrase, this time stripping out the personal attacks and irrelevant commentary. Try to stick to the topic in hand, that is whether or not you genuinely and in good faith think "a cheese panini" or "a cheese panino" are the more commonly used expression in the Anglosphere. Py0alb (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You said, …everyone here agrees that "panini" is the standard common usage for the singular tense, and "paninis" for the plural. I disagreed, therefore your statement is untrue, because everyone does not agree. You seem to be unable (or unwilling) to accept this. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you answer the question please? Py0alb (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that, in my experience, panini is the more common singular. But given the data, I concluded that my personal experience may not be representative of actual usage. So I'm more inclined to follow reliable sources, especially dictionaries, most of which have yet to adopt this shift in usage. Ibadibam (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your experience matches the experience of every other editor here (I have no idea what Skyring thinks, he seems to be arguing a prescriptivist argument claiming its "just wrong" with no real argument or evidence to back this up). It is extremely unlikely that all these editors, and all the editors who contributed to the previous discussion, would ALL be wrong. I've lived in 8 different cities in the US and the UK and I've never heard anyone order "a panino". Don't put too much faith in dictionaries, which are often hopelessly out of date and reflect "official" rather than common usage, or in google statistics which may be misleading - ordering a panini from a shop and googling the word or writing about it in a book are two very different things and may not be particularly well correlated. Recentist arguments are irrelevant here, as paninis are inherently a recent phenomenon in the English speaking world. No-one in the really UK ate paninis in the 1990s, so they wouldn't have used the word.
 * Regardless, both my and other editors' interpretation is that both real world experience and the data are completely conclusive that panini is by far and away the most common singular usage in the Anglosphere.
 * worth reading: http://gothamist.com/2014/09/08/panini_think_piece.php
 * http://www.tasteandflavours.com/2012/09/panini-origin-and-varieties.html
 * ""'Panini' is the Americanized version of the Italian word panino, which means little sandwich and refers to a class of sandwiches that became popular in the United States in the late 1990s." Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America, Andrew F. Smith editor [Oxford University Press:New York] 2004, Volume 2 (p. 235) Py0alb (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Panino – Panini as a singular is just wrong. Being sloppy in our usage because a few editors Just Don't Like It is very poor practice. --Pete (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Panino, per it being not ignorant WP:NONSENSE, and per the N-gram data backing up actual usage in English books. The fact that a few small-town baristas and deli owners (the same people who'll write "Apple's 2 for a $") get this wrong is meaningless.  Cosmopolitan people used to more than pub/bar food know it's "a panino", just like they know the sch in "bruschetta" is pronounced sk not sh, and that there is no x in "espresso". (This awareness may be more diffuse and weak in places with low Italian immigration, e.g. Ireland, where I also saw taco written as *tacco and pronounced /tak-ko/ instead of /tah-ko/. But notably, our article is at Taco not "Tacco".) PS: It would potentially be acceptable to have this page at Panini, but only if this were treated as a plural, and the lead sentence gave the singular correctly as panino. I'm just skeptical that the conditions are met for a WP:PLURAL exception.  People generally have one panino, not multiple panini, unless they are unusually hungry, so the topic is not intrinsically plural.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is no place for pursuing an agenda of snobbery or prescriptive linguistics, the common usage in English is panini and that is what this encyclopaedia should reflect. If you want to promote the usage of "panino", write a blog post. Don't misuse Wikipedia to promote your personal preferences.


 * As Kupiakos commented above: " The Oxford English Dictionary (typically an authoritative source in English debates) lists it as "panini" in the official entry, with panino, pannini, and pannino as other forms. It says: "The Italian plural form panini began to be interpreted as singular in English use in the late 20th cent. (compare quot. 1985); this was soon followed by the appearance of the English plural form paninis." Google NGrams (actually showing usage in books) shows the clear winner of "panini". Why this is even a debate is the real question. "


 * Google trends shows that this isn't even remotely close, panini is the preferred usage by a factor in the 100s: see here: https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=a%20panino%2C%20a%20panini&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1 or here: https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=cheese%20panino%2C%20cheese%20panini&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1 here for UK: https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=panino%2C%20panini&geo=GB&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1 here for US: https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=panino%2C%20panini&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1


 * Why are we having this absurd discussion? Py0alb (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Py0alb (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that we should be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and at first I expected this RfC to be little more than an open-and-shut formality. My own experience is similar to yours, that panini is the more common singular. But that's anecdotal evidence, and in examining the data, I realized that usage is not as clear-cut as we'd thought. The Google Trends data you've linked here are a bit selective. I note the following with each set:
 * Looking at Trends data for Italy is interesting, but doesn't inform this discussion, as we're trying to understand English usage, not Italian.
 * "cheese panin[o|i]" is a good case to consider, but has the same problem of "panini[o|i]" alone (as in your third and fourth links): it conflates uses of the word panini as both singular and plural, thus inflating the frequency for that form. Our aim is to determine usage only for the singular. Some of the searches I linked to in my !vote above use search terms that attempt to address this problem, however imperfectly.
 * In the absence of a good, contextual search term to provide an accurate comparison, it may be wisest to defer to the professionals, who tend to be appropriately descriptivist. My survey of dictionaries indicated that most are still using panino as headword and preferred form. What if we said that, once a majority of major dictionaries acknowledge panini as the preferred singular, we follow suit? After all, we're supposed to be following sources, not establishing our own usage. Ibadibam (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, the comparison of "a panini" with "a panino" is both relevant as it distinguishes the single from the plural and fundamentally conclusive as to the outcome of this discussion. You say "in the absence of a good, contextual search term", but I have provided multiple contextual search terms that have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt which is the more common usage in English. You need to look again at the links, because your "concerns" as to the conclusive nature of these results are entirely unjustified Py0alb (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Panini per common usage. In addition to my own experience as an English speaker, I notice that Google News (more up-to-date than Google Ngrams, which seems to stop in 2008) has twenty times as many results for a panini as for a panino. (It looks like eight times as many at first, but when I clicked through to the last page of results, the adjusted estimates were 7910/369.) Prescriptivist arguments that panini is "just wrong" are not relevant for a neutral encyclopedia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Panini. Per COMMONNAME. Yes, it's "incorrect", but so are a whole lot of other anglicized words.  WP isn't here to fix such things, but follow them.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Panini I also checked Bing.com and there was a vastly higher use of Panini. It's more helpful under this name. (20:53, 12 May) Further checking and the name was established as being Panini, so the current text goes against the earlier established consensus. Travelmite (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Panini - I've never encountered the term panino in thirty years of restaurant experience. Almost every place serving that I have encountered them uses the panini/paninis variant. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Panini per WP:COMMONNAME. And it is perfectly acceptable to name a page after the plural form: we have Bacteria rather than the singular "bacterium". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also: Paparazzi, Illuminati, Crudités, Fried noodles, Rice noodles, Cellophane noodles, and Opium Wars. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, the page title is stable and not in question. This RfC concerns what form should be used as singular within the article body. Do you have any new evidence that "panini" as the singular is actually more common? This is what we've been stuck on, as the usual metrics (Google Trends, ngrams, etc) have been problematic. A more reliable dataset, or some other better approach, would be welcome. Ibadibam (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Woops, sorry! (It may be possible that other editors responding to the RfC misunderstood the question the same way that I did, even though, now that I look back, the wording of the question does point to the article text.) The easiest solution is to use the plural along with the plural verb form, as in "panini are...", and that should probably be what occurs most frequently in the text. But the sky will not fall if some sentences say: "a panino is...". However, there should not be sentences saying: "a panini is...". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent suggestion. It would have to be enforced carefully, of course, but it's the best solution anyone's come up with in nearly four weeks of discussion., what do you think of this idea of using the plural throughout the text, with the exception of the "Terminology" section, where the variants are described? Ibadibam (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like a workable solution to me. --Pete (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that solution is any better than using panino/panini. The problem is that common usage is to use "panini" as a singular, not as a plural. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Its a well-intentioned but misinformed idea, because unlike the other examples given above, paninis don't tend to be talked about almost exclusively in the plural. We use sandwich and not sandwiches. The usage should be singular, and that should be panini, as that is the established common singular usage in the English language as established beyond argument by the majority of dictionaries and usage statistics. Lets refrain from straying back into snobbery and prescriptivism. Py0alb (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Panini per WP:COMMONNAME. When words enter the language of those barbaric Northerners, they become absorbed and adapted to the rules of that language. It's been happening for centuries. The 'proper' singular and plural can always be included. Pincrete (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Summary
Latest Situation: We currently have 7 votes for panini on the grounds of it being the most common usage, 2 votes for panino on the grounds of prescriptivism, and 1 vote from the nominator who is unsure about common usage. We should move to close this discussion soon as it is starting to go round in circles Py0alb (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm unsure about common usage, but I'm quite sure that in the absence of a clearly established pattern of common usage we should follow a majority of reliable sources, which for this case I consider to be dictionaries. So far we've only found one source—Oxford—that prefers "panini". So I'm standing by my argument in favor of "panino" on those grounds. (I'll also point out that there are no votes in Wikipedia discussions, so there's no need to tally the number of editors arguing one way or the other.) Ibadibam (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't entirely buy that argument, but if so, lets do it rigorously. Rather than browsing the internet and cherry picking dictionaries that support one particular viewpoint, I suggest we restrict ourselves to the 8 online dictionaries listed as being "online English dictionaries whose definitions are based upon well-established content": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_dictionaries
 * so lets look through these 8 in an unbiased manner and see what the majority opinion is.


 * Collins http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/panino defines panino as "another name for panini". It lists panini as the singular and paninis as the plural. 1-0 to panini.


 * dictionary.com lists both panino (panini plural) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/panino?s=t and panini (paninis plural) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/panino?s=t on an equal footing. no preference.


 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panino lists panino, but not panini. score 1-1


 * http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/panini?q=panino doesn't find panino, and redirects you to panini instead. 2-1 to panini.


 * http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/english/?q=panino doesn't think that panino exists in English, and suggests you might have meant panini or paninis. 3-1 to paninis.


 * http://www.ldoceonline.com/spellcheck/?q=panini http://www.ldoceonline.com/spellcheck/?q=panino can't find either. No score.


 * http://www.macmillandictionary.com/spellcheck/british/?q=panini http://www.macmillandictionary.com/spellcheck/british/?q=panino can't find either. No score.


 * http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/panini#panini__12 type in "panino" and it redirects you to "panini". final score: 4-1 to panini.


 * So in summary, the majority of editors think "panini" is the standard usage, the majority of online dictionaries think "panini" is the standard usage, the majority of online sources think "panini" is the standard usage, and the majority of stats resources point to "panini" as the standard usage. This is totally and unequivocally conclusive, we have reached a consensus, and unless you have any further objections, I will be closing this discussion as such. Py0alb (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not how RfCs work. I suggest you go read up on the procedure at WP:RfC. You might feel there is consensus, but nobody else does. So there isn't. Just hold your horses and let the thing go. The feedback request service is still inviting people to comment and will do for another three weeks yet. --Pete (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you miss this? 3.The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time. If you read the post directly above yours, you will see that I'm asking Ibadibam is he is willing for the discussion to be closed, seeing as he and I are the only two currently active participants. Presumably, he will either find the evidence I presented above sufficiently convincing, in which case a consensus has been reached, or he won't, in which case he will provide evidence to the contrary Py0alb (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Awww, I'm not a currently active participant? You have high standards indeed! Anyway, it looks like new blood has crept out of the woodwork, predictably taking an opposite tack. This could become a very interesting RfC, and I wouldn't be surprised if it attracts a lot more attention. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you'd like the discussion closed,, I'd agree to a way-#3 close as "no consensus", but that leaves us reverting to the state the article was in prior to the RfC and the edit war that precipitated it, which means retaining "panino", so I suspect you don't want that closure. And given that this RfC is for a change you've proposed to the article, my withdrawing it per way #1 would effect the same outcome. That leaves us with either waiting for further comments or requesting closure, which you've just done (though I take exception to the non-neutral wording of your request). Ibadibam (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thinking to include Collins and Cambridge! I'd overlooked those in my earlier survey. You skipped a couple I had previously cited, so here's a combined list, organized by headword:
 * panino
 * American Heritage (does not give "panini" except as plural)
 * Merriam-Webster (does not give "panini" except as plural)
 * Random House, via Dictionary.com (notes, "Usually, panini.")
 * panini
 * Cambridge (does not give "panino")
 * Collins (gives "panino" as second headword)
 * Oxford – British, US, Learner's (gives "panino" as alternate form)
 * No entry
 * Longman
 * MacMillan
 * Oxford Australian National Dictionary
 * I also tried to look it up on Macquarie but it's subscription-based, and this may not be a subject of particular Australian English anyway. Ibadibam (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , no update on your scorekeeping, given the above? Looks inconclusive to me. Ibadibam (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are seriously misrepresenting your findings Ibadibam and trying to pull the wool over your fellow editors' eyes, and once again severely testing my AGF. You claim above that American Heritage does not give "panini" except as plural, yet when I look here: https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=panini it say "panini: Italian, plural (taken as a singular in English). This really isn't good enough. Manufacturing deliberately false citations to try and "win" an argument are completely unacceptable. Py0alb (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have quoted only a portion of that entry, which goes on to refer the reader to panino as the primary headword. Ibadibam (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I could see, nothing you provided changed the situation. We can all go round trying to cherry pick online dictionaries that support our preference, the only rigorous methodology is to stick to the 8 that are listed as being reliable by Wikipedia, and from which a clear consensus emerged in favour of panini. Nothing has changed. I am happy to wait for an experienced non-involved editor to close this discussion, I'm confident that the undeniable weight of editor opinion and evidence points overwhelmingly towards panini being the preferred singular term in English. 12 different people have commented, and of them only a single editor (yourself) has disagreed that panini is the more commonly used term. The opinions of a single editor cannot prevent a consensus from being reached, especially when the evidence does not back him up  Py0alb (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To put it politely, Redlink, your summary is at odds with the reality. You may feel that this is a game, and it's okay to skew things in your preferred direction, but more regard for the truth will help us all, including whoever closes this RfC. Trying to bamboozle them may not have the effect you intend.


 * !votes are one thing, but I'm not seeing any emerging consensus in discussion. Let alone the "clear consensus" you claim. If there were such a clear consensus there wouldn't be editors saying otherwise, yeah? --Pete (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm happy for an uninvolved editor to consider the arguments and evidence put forth by everyone who has commented so far and come to their own conclusions. If they consider, a) the weight of editor opinion in favour of panini, b) the evidence from google that panini is 20 times more frequently used than panino, and c) the evidence from the dictionary survey which suggested that panini is the accepted singular, they would be hard pressed to come to any conclusion other than that a consensus has been reached. Again: the presence of one or two disruptive editors repeating discredited arguments at clear odds with the evidence does not mean that the majority of people are not perfectly happy with the consensus we have reached here, that supports the previous consensus. Py0alb (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for the RfC process to be worked through. It seems to work very well so far and I can't imagine why this article would be any different. But clearly, through your words above, you do not understand what WP:CONSENSUS means. It doesn't mean that one editor - you - has reached a conclusion that your way is the best way and everyone else is wrong. It means that editors have discussed the issues, found the facts, looked at the policies and come to an agreement on how to proceed, with the possible exception of one or two editors who think that their way is the best way and everyone else is wrong. I'm not seeing the consensus you claim, nor is anyone else saying we have consensus. --Pete (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The list I provided includes every single one of the dictionaries you consulted, and the dictionaries I've listed that take any stance whatsoever on this question are limited to those listed in the Wikipedia article you linked. I don't see how that's cherry-picking. You and I have both identified problems with the various Google datasets in that Ibadibam (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet more opinion flows in in favour of panini. It really is a case of the vast majority against a minority of two pushing discredited arguments based on zero evidence. When will you accept that you're wrong? 22:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py0alb (talk • contribs)
 * Ouch., I still don't understand why you resort to bullying comments like this one, trying to intimidate good-faith editors into withdrawing from the discussion. Rather than commenting on the progress of the discussion, it would be far more constructive to engage in the discussion itself. Instead of actually responding to the various arguments I've put forth and evidence I have provided in support thereof, you've repeatedly mischaracterized my arguments (calling me prescriptivist, when I am in fact arguing for evidence-based descriptivism), accused me of flaunting consensus (when I was only maintaining the stable version of the page in the absence of a current consensus), and threatened to get me banned when I opened an RfC to establish such a consensus instead of accepting your unilateral, bold edits to the article. I feel deeply hurt by these tactics, which are a disappointing distraction from what could otherwise be a civil discussion. Ibadibam (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No-one is bullying anyone. Stop crying wolf, its extremely childish. You need to accept that you alone cannot prevent a consensus being formed when every other editor disagrees with you. We've tried reasoning with you, we've tried showing you the absolutely indisputable evidence, you just ignored it or disingenuously attempted to downplay it. There is no point in reasoning with the unreasonable. Your fundamentalist intractability is causing my AGF is being stretched to breaking point Py0alb (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Py0alb, your comment above isn't very civil. Could I ask you to strike it or apologise, please? We work together for the common good, and you might like to dial down your emotions a notch or two. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Its a perfectly civil comment. The evidence has demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that Ibadibam is incorrect, and the sooner he acknowledges that fact, the better. Constant accusations of bullying, a perpetual victim complex, and an intractability born of stubbornness on the other hand are deeply uncivil. If you wish to continue to comment Skyring, please restrict yourself to the subject matter at hand. This isn't a chat forum. Py0alb (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that making personal attacks on other editors is civil behaviour? Come on, I'm asking you to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If you can't abide by fundamental pillars of Wikipedia, you are going to find your life here difficult. --Pete (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any personal attacks, and I'm not being uncivil. I would ask you politely to try to regain your calm and desist in making unwarranted accusations. I'll remind you again: if you're going to comment, please stick to the topic and make comments only when you have something relevant and constructive to contribute. Other than your initial expression of a preference for prescriptive linguistics, the rest of your comments in this discussion have been off-topic and unconstructive. Py0alb (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect, why not read the material in the links provided? You are at odds with the established community on many things. You can keep on doing this and insisting your way is correct and everybody else is wrong, but I can guarantee you that this will lead to nothing but stress and opposition. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly familiar with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, this is not my first RfC. I'm not at odds with anyone other than linguistic prescriptivists like yourself. It's rather uncivil of your to presume otherwise. Py0alb (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Perfectly familiar", but you choose to ignore them. Fair enough. --Pete (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there is no established pattern of usage within the article itself, different editors have switched usage between panino and panini for several years now. See for example this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panini_(sandwich)&diff=722319747&oldid=461140227 which is explicit that "panino" is the Italian word, whereas "panini" is used as the singular in English. We have a previous consensus above that panini should be used as the singular in the article title, and Wikipedia policy states that the rest of the article should be consistent with that (see WP:ARTCON).

This RfC should seek definitive evidence that panino is significantly more popular in usage in the English language than panini, and if this is not the case, the previous consensus should be adhered to throughout the article without exception. Py0alb (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing
I know one or two editors may be frustrated that their personal views were over-ruled by the Wikipedia community, but please do not express these frustrations through disruptive or unconstructive edits or pointless edit warring. The argument is now settled, you need to accept the consensus view and allow constructive editors to get on with the job of improving the article. Panino imbottello is not an English term and should not be listed as such. "Panini" derives from "Panini", not "panino", and "salami" is a poor comparison because it is not countable. If you have any disagreements with the above statements, discuss them here, do not edit war on the article page. Py0alb (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That discussion was about what term should be used in the article, not about what information should be included in the etymology section. Please stop removing accurate, relevant material. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

As I have explained above, it is neither accurate nor relevant. If you think the information is accurate and relevant, then justify your position here as I have justified my position. If you are unable to do that, then the information will be removed and any further reversions by yourself will be treated as disruptive editing and sanctions will be brought against you. Please engage properly in the process, edit warring is not acceptable Py0alb (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The statement that some English speakers use panino as a singular noun is both accurate (it is cited to a reliable source, and I can easily provide more sources if you want) and relevant (the section discusses how the word is used in English and would be incomplete without mentioning a usage which is or was widespread enough to be listed in major dictionaries). —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reinstated this point in response to your request. The other information I removed, eg referring to Panini as "the plural form" the false comparison to salami was definitely inaccurate and should not go back in. Py0alb (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks—this version is a small improvement, but it is still not good enough. First, it gives the clear impression that panini/paninis is far more common than panino/panini—while I think the first usage is more common than the second, this statement is not supported by the cited sources, and we need to follow the sources. Second, the phrase "some speakers still prefer to use the Italian form" is vague and unclear. The second version that I suggested below seems to have some support, and I think it reflects the sources better than the current version. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Above all, we MUST follow the consensus that we reached. The consensus is that panini is the standard form in the English language. So that is what we must say. Your version "In English-speaking countries, panini is sometimes used as a singular noun with plural paninis, and panino is sometimes used with plural panini as in Italian" does not reflect this consensus, because it makes it sound as if there are two equally common and widely accepted versions, which there are indisputably not; as several editors have already commented, the vast majority of English speakers have never heard of the term "panino" as it doesn't exist in English.
 * I'm not arguing this all over again, we've already had the discussion once and the matter is now settled. Its fine to mention once that a small minority of English speakers prefer to use the Italian term rather than the English word because they are pseudo-intellectual idiots who mistakenly think it makes them sound sophisticated, but we should not present the two terms as having equal usage, because they don't.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py0alb (talk • contribs) 09:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, that discussion was about which usage the article should follow, not about what statements the etymology section should make, so it is not really relevant here.
 * The fact is, we need to follow reliable sources. I've managed to find a source indicating that panini is more common than panino, so I've added it to the section. Additionally, I've rephrased the sentence for clarity and to follow the sources more precisely. Hopefully that will resolve this issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That's better, it will do for now. My main problem now is the equal billing of "panini" and "panino" in the lead sentence. For the sake of clarity and consistenct, the word "panino" should not be mentioned until the discussion about etymology. Py0alb (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Topics that are known by more than one name typically have both names listed in the lead, even if one name is more common than the other. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - The term "Some people use..." is considered a WP:Weasel word, and its use is strongly discouraged. You will need to come up with better phrasing, find a source that supports your claim and establishes exactly "who" is being referred to in your claim. A link to a cherry picked dictionary entry does not constitute a supporting statement because I can find dictionary definitions that make the opposite claim.


 * BTW, I don't support either position, I am making a policy statement regarding the phraseology being used. I no have doubt there people who are linguistic purists, such as Mario Batali, who prefer to use the proper Italian when describing food and dishes. I also understand the argument that the entomology of the word changed when it entered the English language.


 * The policy that covers this is WP:BRD - made a change,  reverted and now you must engage in a discussion regarding the entry. Mr. G doesn't get to continually re-adding the information and Py doesn't keep deleting it. What needs to happen now is that Mr. Granger needs to provide a better source for the information that backs his assertions, Py0alb needs to give him time to do so, and both of you need top stop with the edit warring. I will request the page be locked down until you can find a better solution.


 * If you both keep this up you both could be sanctioned by an administrator. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:W2W is not relevant here. 'Some people say ...' is discouraged where it's used to quality an oft-disputed thesis, and where it really ought to be replaced with the names of the people the statement's attributed to.  WP:BRD is not policy and you've reverted to the unstable version of the article.  Talk about sanctions isn't gonna get anybody in the mood to cooperate, either.  Your interjection here has been unhelpful.  Izkala (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * edit warring is edit warring, and the behavior of many on this issue has been less than helpful. Sometimes people need the warning. Im not really concerned about if it will help develop a consensus, I just want to see the edit warring stop over a pathetic argument over etymology. -- Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Etymology, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The current version of the paragraph, written by Py0alb yesterday, is not supported by the two sources currently in the section. Here is a version which I think is an accurate and neutral summary of the information in the sources, and which avoids the phrasing that Jeremy objected to:
 * In English-speaking countries, panini is sometimes used as a singular noun with plural paninis, and panino is sometimes used with plural panini as in Italian.
 * This alternate version sounds better to me, but uses the phrasing that Jeremy objected to:
 * In English-speaking countries, some speakers use panini as a singular noun with plural paninis, whereas others use panino with plural panini, as in Italian.
 * What does everyone think? —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Second version is more accurate and better supported. --Pete (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What we need here is an RfC where we can reach a definitive conclusion over whether Panini or panino is the more commonly used singular form, and then respect that consensus. Oh wait, we just did that.
 * "Some speakers use" and "sometimes used" is pathetic weasel-wording and leaves the reader confused as to what is the accepted form in English. We just spent a month deciding that Panini is the accepted singular, so that must be what the article says. I'm sorry if you don't like it but that is the consensus we reached. Py0alb (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That RFC was about what term should be used in the article, not what the etymology section should say. I supported panini in the RFC, and I still think that's the term that the article should use. Regardless, the statements in the etymology section need to follow the sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Speaking to the "disruptive editing", Py0alb needs to accept that editing against consensus and process is disruptive. Some of his interpretations are clearly against consensus. A topic ban might be in order here. --Pete (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Care to give an example or do you find it easier to simply throw around baseless accusations? Py0alb (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Your recent edit-warring, for example. Disruptive? YES/NO --Pete (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not an example of "interpretations clearly against consensus". Can you give an example or not? I haven't been edit warring, I have been protecting the page from angry and disgruntled editors who don't like the consensus we have reached. Py0alb (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The RfC which has (blessedly) concluded established a rough consensus for panini in the singular. It did not establish any consensus for the plural. However, has previously argued that the Oxford English Dictionary should be considered an authoritative source for settling usage debates. Since Oxford gives panini as the first plural and paninis as the second, we should use panini as plural, and give paninis as an alternate plural in the etymology section. Ibadibam (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The order in which the Oxford dictionary lists plurals does not indicate any kind of order of preference. Is that what you're trying to argue? Py0alb (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Other, equally authoritative dictionaries, Collins for example, list paninis as the only valid plural. We should stick to that. Please don't waste any more of people's time starting pointless arguments that you won't win. Py0alb (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the lexicographical convention is to list alternate forms in descending order of prevalence. (This is why, for example, the Associated Press Stylebook directs readers to use the first listed form in Merriam-Webster when spelling or usage are in doubt.) OED happens to have a twist on this convention, which is that it always lists North American forms as the second headword, when applicable. I have no idea whether the British-first preference applies equally to pronunciations and plurals, or else those lists use some other ranking method. At any rate, I would be very surprised if any dictionary listed alternate forms in random order. As for the Collins entry to which you refer, you may have read it too hastily: it in fact gives two plurals: -ni and -nis. Ibadibam (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

concerning, the RfC didn't address this question, which is why you opened the above discussion. As you appeared not to have any further comment after my last post of May 31, I moved forward with what appeared to be the consensus of this discussion. If you have further comments on the question, please chime in here rather than in edit summaries. Ibadibam (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * has begun an edit war, hoping to ram his preferred style into the article against longstanding consensus. He has been warned above about this. --Pete (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Ciabatta as an alternative name
'Ciabatta' is listed as an alternative name in the infobox. I've lived in several places in Europe where ciabatta was/is marketed as a bread, including the UK. Where is 'ciabatta' used synonymously with 'panini'? Izkala (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Paninis are made, by and large, with ciabatta bread. a Ciabatta sandwich and a Panini are by definitions the same thing - quite literally. I have been in many, many sandwich shops in the US and UK where asking for a cheese and ham ciabatta is the same thing as asking for a cheese and ham Panini. Do an image search if you don't believe me: Panini sandwich vs ciabatta sandwich. Its the same thing Py0alb (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently in the UK, a "sandwich" can only be made on sliced bread. Anything else is described by the type of bread used. What I, an American, call a "turkey bagel sandwich", is a "turkey bagel" in the UK. My "breakfast sandwich" is a Briton's "egg and sausage roll". So I'd guess that the use of ciabatta here falls into that category. It may be a bit misleading to present this as a full synonym, as a panini on some other bread (pane toscano, say) wouldn't be called a ciabatta. Ibadibam (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would you say a "turkey bagel sandwich"? Its tautological. The final word is entirely redundant. Taken literally, a "turkey bagel sandwich" would be a turkey bagel in between two pieces of bread. Is that really what you meant? Do you go into McDonalds and ask for a cheeseburger and a coffee, or do you ask for a cheeseburger sandwich and a coffee drink? Py0alb (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * In the US we identify the bread type if it is not on standard sliced bread. A croissant sandwich would be a sandwich made on a croissant, a bagel sandwich would be one made on bagel, etc. Other types of sandwich, by their name, mean they are made on different breads - a submarine sandwich uses any of several different types of elongated bread, a hamburger uses a bread bun or bread roll etc. And regarding hamburger sandwiches, that would be correct but unwieldy - we tend truncate the "sandwich" part when speaking, a habit that is common to English speakers in general.


 * Also, the official name of certain commercial sandwiches usually contains the "sandwich" in their name as part of trademark - the Whopper sandwich from Burger King or the Big Mac sandwich from McDonald's are two of the most well known examples of this. Because we have come into simplifying names when we speak as a matter of convenience, we have developed the habit of dropping parts of names that universally acknowledged as well known - a habit that is best described in the article generic trademark --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, no-one would actually say "a turkey bagel sandwich please" in real life. Its unwieldy, tautological and entirely unnecessary, just like no-one asks for a "panini sandwich" or a "ciabatta sandwich" because the server would think you were stupid. They just ask for a "cheese and ham panini" or a "cheese and ham ciabatta" Py0alb (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You missed the first half, in the States we do ask for a bagel sandwich with turkey or a croissant sandwich with egg and cheese - we actually state the class of sandwich when ordering a sandwich on a non-standard bread, so we would ask for a ciabatta sandwich with prosciutto and provolone. In the second part I was talking about was sandwiches such as a hamburger or a submarine sandwich where the structural behavior of English has generalized the term Hamburg sandwich into hamburger, Frankfurt sandwich into hot dog, submarine sandwich into sub and other simplified names of theses sandwiches such as fluffernutter instead of peanut butter and marshmallow creme sandwich. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Categorization
you didn't respond to when you, so I'll raise the question here. While the panini has origins in Italian cuisine, the dish's forms in other countries have strayed pretty far from those origins. I recognize that Category:Sandwiches is a diffused category, though, so that wasn't the best solution. We could take an approach more like pizza, where we add multiple cuisine by nationality categories. What do you think? Ibadibam (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am of the belief that if a child category automatically puts something into a parent category, placing both categories in the article is redundant. Since adding panini to category:Italian sandwiches in the article automatically includes it in the categories Category:Sandwiches and category:Italian cuisine, putting the article into either of the latter categories in is unneeded. If you can locate other applicable categories for the article that might be appropriate, than feel free to do so. Is there a category:grilled sandwiches or category:toasted sandwiches? Thoses would be good ones to create. --<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">Jeremy <small style="font-size:85%;">(blah blah • I did it!) 07:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm more talking about Category:American sandwiches and Category:British sandwiches, since there are variations on those dishes that go beyond simply adjusting to local tastes, to the extent of reimagining the dish entirely. Case in point: the tri-tip panini currently pictured in the article, which has more in common with a cheesesteak than any sandwich dreamed up in Italy. Ibadibam (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There's a rough consensus in favour of panini in the singular.
This RfC barely scraped by, but it certainly doesn't include plurals, and changing the perfectly correct panini to paninis is not covered by consensus, no matter how many times one particular editor shrills that he alone is correct. I can see how a hasty or unschooled person might think that simply adding an "s" onto the end of every word forms a plural, but English includes thousands of words where this is not the case, especially guest words taken from other languages, such as graffiti, spaghetti, paparazzi etc. --Pete (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Panini is the singular. Not the plural. Do not edit disruptively. Py0alb (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Panini is the plural form. There was no consensus to change this, and you have participated in recent discussion, where you gave a cherry-picked example in an attempt to change long-established consensus. Now you are trying to edit-war to get your preferred style without first discussing what you know is a controversial change. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The RfC consensus is for panini in the singular. That's without dispute. The plural was not considered in the RfC, but is instead in the discussion above in . Ibadibam (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you are familiar with the BRD procedure. You made a bold change, I reverted, and now we discuss until a consensus is reached. During that process, the page remains in its previously stable configuration. Please stick to correct protocol and revert your change.

If you want to establish a new consensus, I suggest you open a new RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py0alb (talk • contribs) 07:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When multiple editors tell you that you don't have consensus for your preferred style of plural, then obviously you don't have consensus. "Panini" is the preferred singular here, due to the recently-concluded RfC. "Panini" is the preferred plural, due to longstanding consensus, unaddressed by the RfC. This is in line with other similar words, listed above. If you need this explained a fourth and fifth time, just keep it up. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)←

Please brush up your knowledge of protocol. In a case of no established consensus, the page much be returned to the most recent stable version. The page has been stable for several months now before this bold change. If you wish to change the plural to panini, please open an RfC and seek consensus before doing so. In the mean time the page must remain in its stable configuration according to BRD.
 * Looking back on the history, the first time "paninis" made an appearance here was two months ago with this unsourced claim made by yourself. So far as I can see, no other editor has ever used this plural in this article. I reject your spurious claims of consensus. --Pete (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No-one claimed consensus. Please read more carefully and try to remain civil. The BRD protocol is clear, the page should remain at its previous stable configuration until a consensus is reached. The page had been stable for almost two months before Ibrahidim's bold change. The correct procedure is this: the page is reverted (by me, now), and then Ibrahidim attempts to seek consensus for his new change. If consensus is reached, he can reinstate his bold change. This is the correct procedure, please stick to it, and please don't reinstate the change prematurely, as that would be in direct contravention of protocol and liable to administrative procedure against the perpetrator.


 * TBH, I'd prefer to discuss this with Ibrahidim himself, although I disagree with his interpretation here, as at least he is a constructive editor with a willingness to follow protocol. Your contributions to this discussion have from the very beginning been deeply unconstructive and antagonistic Py0alb (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * PS, your claim that "other editor has ever used this plural in this article" is completely false, although I suspect your already knew that. Paninis has been used as the plural in most stable un-vandalised forms of the article for the past 3 years at least (I didn't look back further than that). Blatant mistruths do not advance your argument, they just make it hard for other editors to assume good faith in the future. Py0alb (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't see that. Do you have some diffs we can chew over? Beg pardon, but your claims rarely inspire confidence. My point is that your version is opposed by multiple editors, so your claim that there is consensus for it falls flat. --Pete (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * And - speaking of protocol - would it be too much trouble for you to use the same indentation protocol that everyone else uses? This would make it easier for other editors to follow what you're getting at, and who you are replying to. If you could sign your contributions, that would also be helpful. --Pete (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Even it's asserted that RfC didn't directly address the plural, the RfC is hardly irrelevant to the subject. It changed the consensus of previous use of panini.  If people aren't all agreed on the plural, then there is no consensus by that same assertion.  I see any editing that claims consensus on panini being plural as disruptive.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am in full agreement, but everytime I attempt to follow correct BRD procedure and reinstate the most recent stable configuration, Skyring edit-wars with me, falsely claiming consensus for his personal preference. How would you recommend we proceed here? Py0alb (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Consensus can develop without discussion, simply by accepting the wording of the article. As WP:EDITCONSENSUS states:"Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time." For the life of this article, panini has been the preferred plural, and only one person is arguing otherwise. Reversion to the status quo is reversion to consensus, and discussion must take place before controversial wording can change. Edit-warring over preferences is not the way forward. --Pete (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Panini and paninis have been used as the plural in equal measure for the past 3 years. I already explained this to you, so why do you keep deliberately misrepresenting the facts?


 * The article has used a stable plural of paninis for 2 months now. This was not disputed at the time, so according to your logic, there is implicit consensus that this is the accepted version.


 * Please stop edit-warring and let BRD protocol take its course. The bold change was introduced to change paninis to Panini, I reverted and asked for an RfC because this is the correct procedure, and the page should have been left in the reverted state while consensus was saught. However than you keep disruptively editing the page by reinstating the as yet non-consensus bold changes. This really is becoming a serious violation of policy on your behalf and will most likely have to be subject to administrative action at this point. Py0alb (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The existence of this discussion is proof that consensus does not exist for panini being plural. QED.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Consensus doesn't mean everybody shares the same opinion, and I'm really only seeing one person pushing for a change. Nevertheless, see above, and as I've pointed out, neither does it show consensus for "paninis" being the plural. The plural of spaghetti isn't spaghettis. It is up to anybody seeking change to present their sources, rather than just imposing their unsupported opinion. --Pete (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Spaghetti is uncountable and therefore not really relevant here, as it does not have a plural. (English speakers don't say *two spaghetti or *several spaghetti, at least not the vast majority of English speakers.) The word panini certainly has a plural—the issue is that for some speakers the plural is panini and for others it is paninis. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, its not even remotely a valid comparison. With all due respect to him, I think skyring has serious WP:competent issues, as his knowledge of linguistics appears problematically limited, and his willingness to follow protocol equally so. Py0alb (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked for some diffs previously, so we could look at facts - as opposed to anything else. Do you have something to back up your claims, please? --Pete (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "paninis" has been referred to as a commonly used plural in English since 2007 and has become more and more accepted in the article ever since as the ignorant prescriptivist vandals have been slowly overcome by more diligent and well-informed editors. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panini_(sandwich)&diff=130741902&oldid=130342680
 * The unnecessary and unencyclopaedic epithet "absurdly" was removed a few edits later. Your claim that "the first time "paninis" made an appearance here was two months ago" was either extremely poorly informed or, as I suspect, you are not editing here in good faith but are rather seeking to impose your own prescriptivist preferences (as witnessed by the prescriptivist arguments you made in the previous RfC) onto this page. Py0alb (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You indicated above that you looked back three years and "didn't look back further than that". Could you give diffs that support your claims. Your diff above goes back nine years to 2007, and indicates that panini as a singular and paninis as a plural is a minority position, with or without "absurdly". I note that "absurdly" was eventually replaced by "catachrestically" (meaning a semantic misuse or error), for example in this version. By 2009, this had changed into "solecismically" (meaning a phrase that trespasses the rules of grammar), along with a reference to the Almighty in this version.


 * The reference remained, more or less stable, but always referring to a minority usage: "In some English- and French-speaking countries, panini is sometimes used as a singular word (like salami, also an Italian plural noun) and sometimes incorrectly pluralized as paninis." as in this version from 2013. Any mention of "paninis" vanished for good in 2015 in this diff.


 * As I stated above, and you have since denied repeatedly, the first use of "paninis" (without any qualification as a minority view or an outrage against grammar) was inserted by you here, with the rather amusing edit summary of "This is the established consensus view."


 * Well, no. It wasn't consensus then, and it isn't now. I'm happy to return to the wording which was stable for many years that indicates that "paninis" is a minority view, but it is wrong of you to simply insert your own (minority) opinion without qualification or discussion and then to edit war over it. You do see this, I trust? --Pete (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's the wording: The current version reflects consensus in the recently concluded RfC. --Pete (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "In some English- and French-speaking countries, panini is sometimes used as a singular word (like salami, also an Italian plural noun) and sometimes incorrectly pluralized as paninis." (wording which was more or less stable from 2007 to 2015.)
 * "In English-speaking countries, panini is widely used as the singular form, with the plural form panini or paninis, though some speakers use singular panino and plural panini as in Italian." (current wording)


 * Nominal "consensus" is irrelevant when content violates wikipedia policy on avoiding making prescriptive comments about word usage, as your suggestion clearly does: "incorrectly pluralised" is an entirely unencyclopaedic phrase. The bottom line is this: the last stable version of the page had paninis as the plural; no-one contested it at the time, so it is now the de facto consensus view. if you wish to contest that, then you need to establish a new consensus using the correct procedures. I suggest you start an RfC. In the meantime, please do not edit disruptively and instead spend your time brushing up your wholly inadequate knowledge of editing protocol. Py0alb (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please don't try that consensus line again. We don't have a consensus for your version. Your task now is to deal with the reality and work constructively. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I had assumed the RfC settled this, but rereading it carefully, I admit it didn't talk about plural. In this discussion, we have multiple editors claiming that consensus exists for their opposing views. That's the definition of no consensus. Sorry, but there's not much to do here except start another RfC, just for the plural of panini. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a new RfC is what I have been proposing as correct protocol from the beginning. This page was quiet for 2 months and the article page stable until this debate errupted. The question is, according to BRD, what version should the page be left in whilst the RfC is in progress? What do you think, AD Monroe? Thanks Py0alb (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In general (without looking at this article's history) I would lean towards whatever changes were done following the RfC, but the important thing is to reach consensus, not worry about The Wrong Version. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed - does anyone have a sensible objection as to why I can't implement this change whilst the RfC is in progress? Py0alb (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Avoiding further disruption. Look at the previous RfC. You got your way eventually, but in between your desire to have the article reflect your opinion right now caused a massive amount of disruption and ill-feeling. Why not follow the advice given - including advice given by yourself - and draw up an RfC. Get more eyes on the question, end edit-warring, end the false claims of consensus, use the process. --Pete (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC wording
The recently concluded RfC established a rough consensus for panini in the singular (in the words of the closer, but failed to address the question of the plural, which remains panini, One editor maintains that he prefers paninis, and has been staunchly editing the article to reflect this. His call for an RfC has some merit. I propose we try this, and work on some neutral wording. I invite editors to submit their preferred wording below: --Pete (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) "In some English- and French-speaking countries, panini is sometimes used as a singular word (like salami, also an Italian plural noun) and sometimes pluralised as paninis." (wording which was more or less stable from 2007 to 2015.)
 * 2) "In English-speaking countries, panini is widely used as the singular form, with the plural form panini or paninis, though some speakers use singular panino and plural panini as in Italian." (current wording)
 * 3) "A recent RfC established panini as the most widely used singular form of the word in the English language. This RfC asks editors to consider what is the more widely used plural equivalent, paninis or panini."
 * 4) "A recent RfC established that this article will use panini as the singular form of the word. This RfC asks editors to determine which plural form the article should use, paninis or panini. This RfC will not determine what statements are included in the Etymology section, but rather what usage the article will follow."
 * 5) <-your wording here ->


 * Wrong RfC. Um, this is backwards.  The RfC should be about what plural of panini is used in the article.  This decision should be based on sources.  Those sources, after they are evaluated, would then be used to make an initial statement on the plural.  Debating details of the wording of that would be the last thing we do, not the first.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)  Later edit: I made this comment when #1 and #2 were the only options.  !voting below.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As in the previous RfC, I would expect sources to be put forward. Here's one, showing panini as the plural, with paninis taking second place, as in wording 2 above. That's already in the article, so here's the Collins as well as the Oxford.--Pete (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The RfC should simply say "A recent RfC established panini as the most widely used singular form of the word in the English language. This RfC asks editors to consider what is the more widely used plural equivalent, paninis or panini."


 * As agreed above, I'm about to revert the page to its state at the end of the previous RfC. I don't like to "threaten", but this has gone on long enough, and as this has become the agreed course of action, any further disruptive edits will be taken to ANI. Py0alb (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You don't have consensus for this, as repeatedly explained. Please refrain from being disruptive, while discussion is ongoing. This section is for discussing wording. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've added my own suggested wording (#4), a modification of Py0alb's, to clarify the scope of the RfC. There was some confusion about the scope of the last RfC, so it's probably a good idea to make this one very clear. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4. I'm also okay with #3. #4 seems a little wordy, but I agree we should try and avoid doing this again.  (Note that #1 and #2 belong to a single RfC proposal that offers a choice between the the two, for the etymology only.  #3 and #4 are different RfCs entirely, though pretty close to each other.)  --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4 - and yes, 3 is fine too. Both expand my specifics to the wider article. We can discuss specific wording once the broader question is settled. --Pete (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4 - Although I expect this RfC to largely be a rehash of above, it's worth going through the proper process for this. My apologies for not thinking to include this question in the previous RfC. Ibadibam (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We were all at fault. No one said "what about plurals?"  I think everyone thought is was obvious, but (assuming GF) what was obvious varied by !vote.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: "Small form of bread"
I'm Italian, and "panino" doesn't mean 'sandwich', but lit. 'small form of bread' (https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/ricerca/panino-imbottito/Sinonimi_e_Contrari/ and https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panino). The panino imbottito, or panino ripieno, is what the British and Americans refer to; I think some corrections need to be made to this page. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Italian term
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Panini (sandwich) → Panino – Although "panini" is the most commonly used form in English, I think writing "panini" is very confusing for non-anglophones. Why is "panino" written "panini", while "tramezzino" is written "tramezzino"? There's no logic. For once, let's leave the rules aside and concentrate on making life easier for readers; the rules aren't perfect, it's our duty to criticise those that aren't good enough and improve them. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC) <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose Like it or not, this is the English Wikipedia. Life is made easiest for Anglophone readers by having it at the current title. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 16:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per the nom's own assertion, "panini" is the WP:COMMONNAME.  Agree with the above comment that only English-language usage matters on en.wiki. 162 etc. (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a very thorough RfC and subsequent discussion on this subject that happened in 2016, see above. 162 etc. (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The nominator is right, "panini" is the WP:COMMONNAME in English and we use English. See also cannoli. Jessintime (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * why this doesn't apply to spumone (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=spumone%2Cspumoni&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3) and panzerotto (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=panzerotto%2Cpanzerotti&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3)? JacktheBrown (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Spumoni and Panzerotti were both moved without discussion by User:JackkBrown. I've requested reverts back to their stable titles. 162 etc. (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * my dear, on the panzerotto page I didn't do what you wrote; this page has always been called "panzerotto" (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panzerotto&diff=prev&oldid=651631021). Don't accuse me without a good reason, thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It has not always been called panzerotto; see this edit from January 162 etc. (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't remember this, you're right. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WP:UE.  O.N.R.  (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very clearly the common name in the English language (and also in French and probably others). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)