This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Hors d'oeuvre was a Agriculture, food and drink good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that hors d'oeuvre trays (pictured) served on a table may be referred to as buffet-style, while those held and passed by servers are part of butler-style service or butlered hors d'oeuvres?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
'Hors d'oeuvre', though adopted into English from French, has likely assimilated enough into common use in English for it not to warrant italics anymore. Hors d'oeuvreappears in Merriam-Webster Online—which is described in MOS:FOREIGNITALIC as a good rule of thumb for deciding which words may or may not need to be italicised—suggesting that it may now be a loanword of English than a foreign French one.
Hey, I don't have time to do this myself right now but this just doesn't read well at a superficial level. Someone should just go through this and do some basic editing. Nothing wrong with the content just needs some touch-up. 94.191.152.207 (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I see what you mean...but there is a lot of interesting stuff here. Like little door mice snacks..yum, yum!!! I only did one thing and that was a photo improvement to one of the links... Sectionworker (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the IPA and example of pronunciation in the lead, should we add the spelling pronunciation "horse doover," which is commonly used in parts of America? I fear by not including actual usage we're leaning towards a problematic degree of proscriptivism.
2601:405:4400:9420:1D37:2240:AF1D:C590 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary seems to consider it legitimate and have a number of supporting quotes. I'd say we should trust a sister project on this and use whatever sources they cite. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/horse%27s_doovers
a) Wiktionary is not in itself a reliable source, though its cited sources can be.
b) Wiktionary does not in fact give "horse's doovers" as a pronunciation of hors d'oeuvres, but as a "Fanciful corruption", complete with a separate entry under a different spelling. --Macrakis (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can it with the trolling, IP. You’re being too cute by half and assuming nobody saw you said “proscriptivism”. Anybody in the U.S. with family members from the mid-20th century knows this is basically a Dad Joke specifically utilized to get laughs at a Marx Brothers level. (If anybody from WikiEd is reading this, THIS is the kind of student research project that would potentially be of encyclopedic value, versus innumerable meaninglessly noodling expansions of sustainable fashion. Just saying.) Julietdeltalima(talk)20:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 - No clear consensus or compelling arguments to make this move. While both Hors d'oeuvre and Appetizer are synonymous in some cases they are not in others which is clearly demonstrated in the various arguments. Mike Cline (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Also, is there any difference between this and entrée (non-American usage)? Perhaps the two articles should be merged, and entrée made into a disambiguation page (given the totally different American meaning). W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article did begin by using British English as shown by the creation edit made in Oct. 2002, then it was made official by editor Tridwoxi in Dec. 2019 with [this edit]. The AE banner was placed here on this talk page by editor Qwertyxp2000 in Dec. 2015 with [this edit]. The talk page banner has been changed to the correct BE, which reflects the beginning of this article in 2002. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there08:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Appetizer may be common in American usage, but hors d'oeuvre is the international term. And the general term for this type of small dish. It is not exactly the same thing. Something is called an 'appetizer' when served at the beginning of a meal. Which is not always the case, as they can be served by themselves. e.g. you serve hors d'oeuvre at a cocktail party, you do not call them appetizers, as there is no subsequent meal. Walrasiad (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article current defines it as served before a meal. Which makes sense etymologically. Without a meal, what is the oeuvre? In my dialect, small dishes served before a meal are appetizers and small dishes served without any accompanying main meal are hors d'oeuvre. Srnec (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Common term worldwide. This is not American Wikipedia. In fact, we'd call it a starter in British English (appetizer being quite rare), but that too is probably more country specific. WP:COMMONALITY applies here. And yes, this article and Entrée should probably be merged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split between the concept of finger foods served on trays at a reception or event, and the menu section at a mid-level family restaurant inevitably populated with fried cheese and taquito bites. BD2412T15:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Canapés probably being the commonest term for the former. I should point out that in my experience starters are found in all restaurants at all levels of poshness. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Other editors stated that "Appetizer" is specifically the American version, but this article is written in American English, so it should use American terms. 206.190.231.82 (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how article titling works. Nobody is suggesting we should move to a term specific to another English-speaking country, but that we should move to a generic title used and understood in multiple countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to appetizer There should be a Wikipedia article titled "appetizer" and right now, this one has the content to fill that role. I am not opposed to a split to make separate articles for "hors d'oeuvre" and "appetizer", but if those two concepts both land to this content, then the title should be appetizer. While "appetizer" may be an American term, American English is also closer to International English than British English, as it uses simpler terms with fewer borrowed words from other languages. The many people who have English as a second language will not recognize the spelling or pronunciation of "hors d'oeuvre" as the primary name for this familiar concept. Simpler word choices are preferred over tradition without great evidence of a single best choice, and no such evidence is yet presented in favor of French here. Bluerasberry (talk)16:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
American English is also closer to International English than British English. What utter rubbish! In any case, Hors d'oeuvre is no more British English than it is American English. We'd say "starter", which is even simpler than "appetizer". There is absolutely no reason to move this article to an American English title that is not commonly used outside North America. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The country with the most English speakers is India so we could do it their way, which seems to be "appetizer" and not "starter" or "hors d'oeuvre"
"Hors d'oeuvre" is not something that English speakers in India would easily be able to read, write, or pronounce.
WP:ENGVAR should not apply because this is not a simple choice of two equal words; it is a matter of readability. WP:COMMONNAME favors "appetizer" or "starter" because most English speakers are not native English speakers, and the European tradition of incorporating French words where there is an English equivalent is not the international norm.
Interesting strategy. So now we use Indian English as a determinant of Wikipedia usage. Presumably unless (as in most cases) Indian English follows British English usage, when I'm guessing we favour American English? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: I think Indian English is a good indication of how English works as a second language. India has many native speakers but also does a lot to support English as an additional language, and publications there use simpler terms to increase clarity. I think the links above are supporting evidence that "hors d'oeuvre" is not the COMMONNAME for this term in that English language community. The general rule that I would apply here is that international Category:Dialects of English tend to avoid borrowed words from other languages when there is a popular equivalent English term, and both "appetizer" and "starter" work for in this case. Bluerasberry (talk)15:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This article began by using British English, so if a page move succeeds, then it should be to Appetiser per MOS:RETAIN. However, the current title, Hors d'oeuvre, should remain in place per editors above and below who have cited policy and guidelines such as COMMONNAME, COMMONALITY, ENGVAR and NWFCTM. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there08:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Wikipedia articles are not "owned" by anyone, so an article can have its English variant changed at any time if needed. I consider that the community would find the decision to change its that article's "birth English variant" from British English to Amercian English, of which the American English variant is far more recognizable and much less niche. Also, I never heard of a "hors d'oeuvre" being said by anyone, but I did hear "appetizer" in various media such as an episode from SpongeBob SquarePants (specifically "Squilliam Returns"). Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been pointed out, Hors d'oeuvre is not British English! Almost nobody in Britain would call it an hors d'oeuvre. British editors here are not arguing for a retention of a British English term but for the retention of a universal term that is neither American nor British English. Some American editors, on the other hand, are arguing for a switch from a universal term to an American English term. That's not how Wikipedia article titling works, hence WP:COMMONALITY. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support but redirect "Starter" is common in other places, I know, but this title is much, much less common. This should be moved and then redirected to appetizer, or to starter, I don't really care either way, but whatever we move it to, make sure that the other name which we didn't move it becomes a redirect, along with this page. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Appetizers" are different from hors d'oeuvres. "Appetizers" are served in the context of a two-course meal (three if you include dessert) and are frequently intended to be shared by a group of diners; hors d'oeuvres are served individually. I agree with the suggestions for a separate "appetizer" article to exist regarding its own subject matter. "Starter" is coarse unencyclopedic slang not deserving of an article. (Don't even get me started on "apps.") Julietdeltalima(talk)00:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, "starter" is not "coarse unencyclopedic slang" but standard British English. If you went into a British restaurant and asked for an "appetizer" or an "hors d'oeuvre" you would get some very strange looks. We would call both the things you describe above "starters". Don't assume that anything other than American English is incorrect or you start to meet the stereotype of the arrogant American. And don't get me started on "dessert"... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My circle of friends and I use the term hors d'oeuvres. They are presented to be served individually, like on toothpicks, etc. When eating out one might order an appetizer plate to share while waiting for food. I'm an American. Sectionworker (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SplitToomuchcuriosity (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC) In my idiolect, hors d'oeuvres is only in the contexts of a reception before a formal meals at celebratory occasions. It can also be used to describe an event (not just the food itself) where to small dishes served by waitstaff before seating for formal meal. The canapé page does not encapsulate this use of this term in this manner since it describes a type of food. I've used the term appetizer to describe any food dish served before a main course (for instance, at a restaurant). It seems as though some others make this distinction as well, indicating the need for two pages. However, as seen in the disagreement above, this distinction may not apply to other people's use of the terms. Regardless of the outcome, I think the page should clarify that different people may use these terms in different ways per WP:DIVIDEDUSE. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
