Talk:Indian burn

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture articles

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 21 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Chinese burn. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 14 November 2021

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: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian burn (prank) → Indian burn – Unnecessary disambiguator. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. No idea why this was created with a disambiguator in the first place. It has a complex history, having been created in 2004, then redirected to List of school pranks, which was itself then deleted at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of school pranks (3rd nomination). Chinese burn, the equivalent phrase in British English, was created in 2005 and then also redirect to List of school pranks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy move uncontroversial technical request. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:14, 19 November 2021 (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.

Requested move 21 August 2022

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. As noted by various participants of the discussion, this is likely an WP:ENGVAR (US v. UK) issue. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian burn → Chinese burn – I know both names will have their detractors for being offensive; this is not what the move discussion is about. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Chinese burn" seems to be more common than "Indian burn" (see Google ngrams). QueenofBithynia (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Per NGRAM evidence above. Mike Cline (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without other evidence, oppose per WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN. The Ngram is utterly unconvincing as most of the returns are unrelated to this topic. (Click on the results lists and nb e.g. "(Chinese) Burn Unit of the 3rd Military Medical College", "a Chinese burn salve". "the Chinese burn incense", "which the Chinese burn in lamps" &c.) I tried tweaking the Ngram to refine the results; "Indian burn is/Chinese burn is" got nothing and "an Indian burn/a Chinese burn" still had too many false positives ("Would an Indian burn one of his own tribe"/"This is a Chinese burn salve"). — AjaxSmack 17:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. 162 etc. (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.: Of what relevance is WP:ENGVAR here? Is one of these terms much more associated with a particular national variety of English than the other term is? Graham (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The ngram is highly unconvincing given that nearly every result from the first page of my Google Books search for "Chinese burn" wasn't about the prank. And I can't find any other evidence that Chinese burn would be the common name. (Anecdotally, while I think I've heard both terms, I would have assumed Indian burn to be much more common.) Graham (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Certainly invariably known as a Chinese burn in the UK, but this is probably an ENGVAR issue. It was created as "Indian burn", so if that's the commoner name in the USA then that's how it should stay. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 24 August 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.