Talk:French fries/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Requested move 29 January 2023

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. per SNOW (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

---

French fries → French fry – Per WP:NCPLURAL, singular titles are preferred. Although "French fries" is more common than "French fry", the latter is still frequently used, and is not "awkward" or "unnatural". Related discussion at Talk:Chicken McNuggets#Requested move 28 January 2023 which alerted me to the naming of this article. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would invoke the "occasional exceptions may apply" in this case. The plural form is the far more common name for the dish worldwide, to point where the singular form is still almost close to an "awkward, unnatural" title. I would hate for Wikipedia to be the only one listing it in singular form while most other references (cooking and food, academic, or otherwise) still seem to render the dish in the plural form. Also compare Chicken fingers with Popcorn chicken. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  But chicken nugget. And I'm not sure what the alternative to popcorn chicken would be. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Why does Chicken fingers use a plural title but Fish finger uses a singular title? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, as this is the name of the dish rather than the name of the individual component. A restaurant menu may list "hamburger" as an item, but will always list "french fries" as a dish. Compare standing rib roast with Short ribs or Spare ribs. BD2412 T 02:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  A restaurant menu would list "hamburger" because it's almost always only one served at a time. They would almost always serve multiple sliders, but it's still slider (sandwich). I don't think we want to be analyzing how frequently a single unit of food is consumed to decide on the article name. How about grapes, peas, blueberries, etc.? –CWenger (^ • @) 02:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps a restaurant would almost always serve multiple sliders, but they would always by definition serve multiple french fries. BD2412 T 01:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, french fry can be misinterpreted as a verb, which is a much worse naming sin on Wikipedia than plurals per WP:NOUN. SpinningSpark 09:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Denisarona (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. this is even sillier than the Sneakers to Sneaker RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I support the sneakers to sneaker move, but this is too much per User:BD2412. —  AjaxSmack  03:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: This is obviously going to fail but I wish we had more consistency with our naming of food items. We have French fries, chicken fingers, and spare ribs but potato chip, chicken nugget, and dumpling. I was under the impression that WP:COMMONNAME did not apply to the singular vs. plural form, which is why many items that are more common as pairs are still named with the singular form, e.g. shoe and windshield wiper. I also wish WP:NCPLURAL had some more nuanced example exceptions than "scisssors" and "handcuffs". –CWenger (^ • @) 15:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to make sense that Chicken fingers would use a plural title but Fish finger would not. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per other nominators, unnecessary. It's always referred to in plural form. --Killuminator (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Not always, just very often. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per all above. Sometimes dogma is bad. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose who eats just one? Sbishop (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

If your friend ordered fries and you didn't, you might ask him if you can have one. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

True, but I doubt whether you'd actually say 'can I have a fry please?' Sbishop (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You could say that, but you'd be lying. You know you want more than one. —  AjaxSmack  01:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

If the one french fry isn't very good, then I stop at just one. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

What about, lets say at a fast-food chain, you would ask for either "Medium Fries" or a "Medium Fry" which is quite common. 2600:1700:19C0:4280:4468:34DE:7E7C:FD9E (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

It is not possible to eat just one fry [1]. SpinningSpark 14:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Variety of English

A user (@Denisarona:) recently removed the {{Use American English|date=September 2020}} tag. The article now has a mix of British and American spellings. Per MOS:ENGVAR, we shouldn't do that. If there are "strong national ties to a topic" (MOS:TIES), we could decide on that basis. If not, and I doubt is one, we can "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety" (MOS:RETAIN). Does that make sense?

Yes, this makes sense to me.

If it does, we can go back in the history and see which "identifiable variety" was used first. When this article was created back in 2003, it doesn't look like there was a "stub" identification. Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

They probably did that because in the previous edit I had reverted an attempt to change the spelling "flavour" to "flavor". I did that on the basis of this edit (only the second edit to the article) which used the spelling "rumour" rather than "rumor". That is the first spelling distinction made. Where else is the spelling inconsistent? SpinningSpark 17:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

But the article was created with the title "french fries", which is the American term, so the article should be written in American English. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

French fries is a British term too, chips are a different dish to french fries. 2A02:C7C:BD43:6000:F88B:E856:EF9D:F45D (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I made some changes to match British spelling (and others because, for me, copy editing is difficult to keep under control). Is there any objection if we now add a {{Use British English}} tag? SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

No objection. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you kinda have to do it now. SpinningSpark 14:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

As a somewhat uninvolved party, I just went and did it. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I object to this. As the article was originally created with the title "french fries", which is the American term, the article should be written in American English. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The term french fries is undoubtedly American in origin, but it does not unambiguously indicate American English. "French fries" is used and understood in Britain; by 2001, when this page was created, it had become an international term. SpinningSpark 13:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2023

Can you please change '... of disputed origin from Belgium or France. ...' to '... of disputed origin from Belgium. ...', because it's officially from Belgium. Searching for information (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2023

The following passage in "Origin" might be false : "Fries are first mentioned in 1775 in a Parisian book, and the first recipe for modern French fries is in the French cookbook La cuisinière républicaine in 1795."

I have this book. There is no recipe for modern French fries, only croquette. 81.11.151.72 (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The whole sentence is unsourced. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I found one potential source from fr:La Cuisinière républicaine at citation 14 [2]. Though it does seem to conflict with what the IP is saying regarding the book only having croquette. Assuming that's the book they meant of course. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 00:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I concur with OP. I could track down the book here, and though they have a recipe for "fried potatoes" (p.23), it does not look like "modern French fries": slices are dipped in batter before frying. Most other recipes describe boiled or baked potatoes. Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 11:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2023

I want to change citations to references as it makes more sense 213.202.141.179 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Zefr (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Why does this use British English, when the title is the American/Canadian term?

That definitely makes no sense whatsoever. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 18:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is discussed at the top of this talk page.Ponsonby100 (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

french fries

who was the first person to made french fries 2601:601:8302:7AA0:4898:6D12:9337:2425 (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Read Origin. Zefr (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The name "French Fries" is Biased. Change Page name to "Fries (Food)"

The term "French Fries" is mainly an American name for finger-shaped, fried potatoes. American hamburger chains erroneously popularized the name "french fries" in the US. There is no definitive confirmation that these were invented in France at all. There is an earlier claim which is Professor Paul Ilegems stated that Saint Teresa of Ávila of Spain cooked the first fries, and refers also to the tradition of frying in Mediterranean cuisine as evidence. The name "French Fries" is biased and misleading. This page should be renamed to "Fries (food)" to make it neutral. -Artanisen (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on article titles is to use recognizable, natural, precise, concise, consistent names. Many titles including countries' names do not describe things originating in that country: Chinese checkers (invented in Germany), French toast (pan-European), Russian dressing (US). --Macrakis (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Teresa of Ávila

@Artanisen: -- you are right, the web site Focus on Belgium is not just a travel promotion site. It is published by the Public Diplomacy Service and also promotes Belgian culture in general. Public diplomacy is basically public relations for countries. Just because it is a branch of the Belgian government does not make it a WP:Reliable source for much of anything, and certainly not culinary history. The article itself is unsigned, has no source references, and confuses "baking" with "frying" (no doubt a bad translation).

We already include Ilegems' claim about Teresa, which should be enough. And although there is evidence that potatoes were grown in her convent, they were surely not white potatoes but sweet potatoes ("Las patatas del siglo de oro"), and there is no evidence that they were fried. All that Teresa said was "La suya recibí, y con ella las patatas y el pipote y siete limones." Nothing about frying. --Macrakis (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Macrakis:, Focus on Belgium is an official website of the Belgian government, specifically the Public Diplomacy Service of the Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation. Thus it is a reliable source including for culinary information. You're dismissing an official website of the Belgian government, because you don't like the information. However, the Belgian government surely doesn't spread false information about their own culinary history. The About Us page says "Focus on Belgium is a website designed to present Belgium. On it, visitors will find precise and factual information about various fields (geography, history, institutions, etc.). The website also presents a series of news articles, providing reliable and verifiable information from independent and recognised sources." -Artanisen (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That it is a public diplomacy (i.e. promotional) site tells us nothing, especially when the article is unsigned, unsourced, and contradicts better sources (Caius Apicius = Cristino Álvarez). Oh, and it is not an "official" site in the sense of reflecting the official position of the ministry: "The FPS Foreign Affairs cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information distributed via its site" [3]. --Macrakis (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)