Talk:Gyros/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Doner origin?

Nope. It originates from Ancient Greece, where they consumed it with pork, flattened bread called plakountas, onion and a mixture of yoghurt and garlic. Sound familiar? Andreas George Skinner (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting theory. Do you have any evidence for it? (Just to be clear, we are talking about γύρος in the narrow sense, right? Not σουβλάκι in a sandwich.) Do you have any evidence of the ancient Greeks making τζατζίκι or even yogurt? Do you have any evidence of vertical spits? Do you have any evidence that plakountas was used to make sandwiches? And what was this dish called in Ancient Greek? As far as I can tell, the name γύρος was invented in the 1970s to replace the previous name, ντονέρ (κεμπάπ). Was there an earlier Greek name for it? I would be very interested to see reliable sources on all these issues. I would be surprised if there were attestations of either γύρος or ντονέρ in Greece before 1920, or of döner kebab anywhere in the world before 1700, but if you can find them, great! Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing to contribute to the previous poster's claims and the sources in the article already support a 19th century origin (in what is now modern Turkey) for the modern gyros; however, grilled meat on a skewer is already getting a bit specific, and so I think the article would be remiss if it did not even mention the ancient background and traditions of 'grilled meat on a stick' dishes in the area. Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that gyros derives from Turkey, and is essentially identical with it (to be charitable, let's call it a national variant), it should be merged with the Döner kebab article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: There's no definite proof for the claims about a Turkish origin, only some sources saying so, while other equally reliable sources do not support the claim. So let's keep separate articles for döner kebab, gyros, shawarma and al pastor, four very similar dishes deeply rooted in four separate cultures... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

We have done on this very old discussion. In the case of gyros, there's really no doubt at all about a Turkish origin, but since we're giving shawarma and al pastor the benefit of the doubt there's not a lot of point worrying about the Greek variant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

English noun: veer (food) • Here is the English Wikipedia

Greek: gyros > Latin: gyrare > French: virer > English: veer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8438:A900:E865:16E9:EDB6:2449 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia article about a food called "gyros". In English, this food is never called "veer" or "gyre" or "turning" or whatever, though you might think it ought to. By the way, French virer does not come from Latin gyrare, but probably Latin vibrare (OED). --Macrakis (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and the use of "gyros" to mean the food only dates to the 1960's, so a supposed development from ancient Greek to Latin to French to English isn't possible. --Macrakis (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Gyro vs. Gyros

I propose changing the article title to Gyros (as well as swapping the redirects obviously) since it's, well, the actual name, used overwhelmingly around the world including in English. It absolutely does not make sense to use the less common name as the title and put mention of the proper one in basically as a footnote, like some sort of lazy afterthought. Acolossus | Talk | Contributions 20:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the name "gyros" is not a footnote. It is at the very beginning of the article. When things have more than one name, we have to choose one as the title, but others are mentioned in the intro.

Now, what evidence do you have that "gyros" is more common than "gyro" in English? The "actual name" in Greek is not relevant under WP policy -- consider such things as taramasalata, which is clearly wrong in Greek (and bothers me every time I see it).

Let's try using Google ngrams. First problem is that we have to distinguish "gyro(s)" meaning "gyroscope(s)" from the food.

A Google ngrams search shows that the most common combination "gyros NOUN" is gyros sandwiches, so lets see if gyro sandwich(es) is more or less common. About 15% of the total is "gyros"; surprisingly (to me) this is down from about 30% in 1990.

Unfortunately, the ngrams data only goes up to 2008, so things may have changed since then. Do you have a better source? --Macrakis (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You know the footnote comment wasn't literal, right? You are aware of this concept of figurative comparison? Acolossus | Talk | Contributions —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"used overwhelmingly around the world including in English" means used in the USA? In Australia it's "yeeros"/"yiros" and I think this spelling may be used in the UK as well after doing a quick search... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.173.58 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I see no evidence that singular gyros is used "overwhelmingly" in English, though it does seem to be used in Australian news media, along with yeeros. But how about using reliable sources to answer this question, instead of original research? See Garner's Modern American Usage for a good explanation of how the word has been anglicized (such as the fact that an anglicized singular gyros would naturally lead to a plural gyroses). Other Sources such as the OED, Oxford Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases, Merriam-Webster, and many other similar English language references overwhelmingly use singluar gyro, which has been in use in English since the word was coined, (or at least shortly thereafter), in the early 70s (see the NYT citation in the article, and the OED entry). Per WP:USEENGLISH, there is no basis to move the article to the Greek (or any other languages') spelling. --IamNotU (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why someone would pluralize gyros as gyroses, given that the concept of a word being its own plural is not foreign to English (fish, raccoon, news, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.23.12 (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Because it's by far the usual way in English. Yes, there are some exceptions, eg. for loanwords from First Nations languages (racoon, moose), and uncountable nouns (news, butter, etc.) but fishes is well-known and, at least where I'm from, people usually say "racoons". Anyway, it's an illustration of how and why foreign words become anglicized according to typical and common usage patterns in English. This seems to have happened with gyro/gyros - perhaps not exclusively, but widely - according to the above-mentioned reliable sources on the subject, including Garner's Modern American Usage whence the reference to gyroses derives. And also according to unreliable but germane sources, such as this song... --IamNotU (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The singular is definitely gyro in Greek. I may say something like ένα γύρος παρακαλώ. If I say ένα γύρο παρακαλώ. I'm like to be met with ποιο γύρος, γυροσκόπιο? Or something equally ridiculous. However I live in a predominately English speaking country where it's common to even put an extra s even on my name as if there's two of me. Or somehow mistake my name for a feminine name. But this article is full of nonsense.

Actually, I can tell you a more interesting story. It definitely is not a Turkish dish, and I can tell you why this is, that's because the Greek population changed to eating predominately pork to spite the Ottomans. Being a predominately Muslim country, after the war of independence, they could no longer eat our food. But you can have Gyro with any kind of meat... Beef, chicken, lamb or even fish in Greece. In fact you can even have souvlaki with a pita and the same ingredients so there you go. I don't mean to be rude with that comment but this is the type of thing that Turkish Wikipedians like to do in order to minimise the contribution of Greek people to the world. --2001:8003:641C:4B00:A508:AD43:8EA3:F583 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The singular is most definitely gyros in Greek and not gyro as the user above falsely mentions. Nominative is used in Greek to generically refer to something, e.g. "Gyros is a greek food". What the user describes above is how the word changes in accusative which is used when a person orders the food, e.g. "I'd like a pita with gyro". If we apply these same conditions to the English language then the title of the article should be changed and an -s should be added because it is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbb345 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge with döner or shawarma

The following discussion 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.

---

I think this article should be merged with döner or alternatively shawarma. Gyro is a Ottoman/Turkish food that has been appropriated by the Greeks, and the history supports this. This article is very low quality and only has a few references, this deserves to be part of doner or shawarma as it is the same, Turkish food and it is a short enough article to merge into doner or shawarma.Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Not the same thing. Easily passes WP:GNG: "Probably the best-known Greek food worldwide is gyros."; "The Greek gyros is one of the best known Greek foods worldwide." Article is substantial and reasonably well-written with numerous high-quality sources giving significant coverage. --IamNotU (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

References

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.

French fries never used, ordinary fries are

The following discussion 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.

---

Editors of this page insist on pushing an agenda to suggest that french fries are used in greek gyros, french fries are never used in Greek gyros. Regular authentic thick-cut fries are. The source cited, is not a reliable source. It is written by Americans and for an american audience therefore obviously biased and lacking in expertise of greek cuisine. Previous editors have raised problems with this source before on the talk page. Moreover, it must be pointed out that the source cited is not even a book written about greek cuisine, so it's highly unreliable, greek cuisine is only a small part of the source. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

French fries and chips are the same thing. They just have different names in different countries, like zucchini and courgette. WWGB (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No they are not. French fries are a specific type of fry or chip. Even the french, do not call their fries, french fries. Why is this article using the term for a specific type of american fry when it's referring to a greek food that never uses that style of fry? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

So the Wikipedia article French fries, which says the terms are synonymous, has been wrong for 18 yrears! WWGB (talk)

Yes, there is garbage information on wikipedia all the time. I mean, is this news to you? I've fixed hundreds of old errors before. Wikipedia is never finished and always has mistakes, i mean...it's sad i have to point this out. You could spend a lifetime fixing mistakes on wikipedia. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Added new sources which don't include the falsehood about french fries being used, instead just calling them fries or chips. Also, the sources solved the previous issue brought up on the talk page about mustard or ketchup only being used "sometimes" in northern greece. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the removal of the citation of "Street Food around the World: An Encyclopedia of Food and Culture". The book is published by ABC Clio, a respected publisher of academic reference works. According to Google Scholar it is cited by numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and academic books [1]. It is also cited in dozens of other Wikipedia articles. The entry for gyros was written by Dr. Colleen Taylor Sen, a well-known food historian and author. The book is not specifically about Greek cuisine, but is a general encylopedia of street food. I believe it is reliable as a source for the basic ingredients of gyros in Greece. I don't see that it is "obviously biased", "lacking in expertise", or "highly unreliable". I would ask that it not be removed again, unless a consensus here or at WP:RSN is reached to do so.

I have also again restored the status-quo term "french fries" and reinstated the "disputed" tag, as the dispute has not been resolved. I would ask that the change to "fries" not be repeated a fourth time unless a consensus is reached here to do so.

It's correct that in British/Commonwealth English the thick-cut style are called "chips", while the thin-cut style may sometimes be called "french fries" (though also "chips"). In that sense it is true that for many of those speakers, "french fries" refers to a specific American thin style, and has a different meaning than the more general "chips". However, I have seen no evidence for the claim that the term "fries" is commonly used in British English to refer to thick-cut chips rather than thin ones. Nor do I see evidence that in any English variety, "french fries" has a different meaning than "fries". Thus the change does not improve the article.

The definition of "french fries" from the Cambridge English Dictionary website linked above: "long, thin pieces of potato that are fried and eaten hot" doesn't support the claims: french fries are never used in Greek gyros. Regular authentic thick-cut fries are., French fries are a specific type of fry or chip, a term for a specific type of american fry, etc. The entry in the same dictionary for "fries" states: "long thin pieces of fried potato - synonym: French fry".[2] All other dictionaries I checked that have an entry for "fries", both American and British, give "french fries" or "french fried potatoes" as a synonym: [3], [4], etc. The Oxford Companion to Food describes "the french fry or the fatter British chip";[5] it does not use the term "fries" alone, nor does the Oxford English Dictionary.

The fact that the newly-added sources use the term "fries" is also not evidence that it means something different than "french fries", rather than being simply a more informal short form of the same term, as it is described in the above sources. It may be appropriate for use in these travel guides, but Wikipedia should use a more formal encyclopedic tone, as the Oxford Companion and other encyclopedias do. Also, an equal number of similar (and similarly low-quality) Greek travel guide and recipe websites that use the term "french fries" are easily found, for example this one: [6] which says "the standard extras are French fries, tomatoes, lettuce, onion and tzatziki", and then goes on to use the abbreviated "fries" in the rest of the guide to refer to the same thing. See also [7], [8], [9], etc.

This article happens to use the American variety of English, see WP:ENGVAR, and there is no strong reason to change it, see MOS:RETAIN. Thus the appropriate encyclopedic term is "french fries", which also covers British chips. If it's really necessary to specify the thickness, we could say "thick-cut french fries, or something similar. But I oppose changing to the less-formal term "fries" simply on the basis of unsupported claims that it means the same as thick-cut "chips" while "french fries" does not. I also note that there is no support for the idea from any of the editors who have commented here or at Talk:French fries#Move to 'Fries', nor in any other source I could find - it would appear to be original research. --IamNotU (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree completely with IanNotU. This discussion about the "different meanings" of chips, fries and french fries is meaningless. In addition, what you get in Greece, is neither; you get patátes tiganités. Traditionally they are handcut, and therefore they do not conform to any of the other "standards". Nowadays you find "prefabricated" standard-sized chips many places, but fortunately many restaurants and gyro outlets still serve the traditional version. And whether to call them fries, french fries or chips is a discussion we should not use much energy on. --T*U (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• French fries is only ever applied to skinny fries (and only in one or two dialects at that). It's laughable to claim that i somehow invented this, only an uncultured dunce would ever refer to a fry from belgium or the netherlands as a french fry. No original research required, there's clear evidence based on how the words are used all over the world. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• ALSO, your claim of "french fry" being a more formal term is absolutely ridiculous. That totally constitutes original research. By your own claim, french fries and fries mean the same thing, so there should be no reason not to use the term fries. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Also, i never said fries *are* the same as a thick-cut chip. I said, french fries *aren't* the same as a thick-cut chip. There's a difference there. Fries can be thick or thin or medium, therefore it's a much better term to use because it's more accurate in this instance. Fries is a broader term with more applicability. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• "Fries is the short-term of french fries" what a joke...the word fries existed long before french fries. It can't be a short term of something, if the word literally came first. French fries literally just emerged as a colloquial USA term, which then got applied to the inauthentic skinny american style of fries. To the contrary, it's certainly the informal and colloquial term rather than the formal term. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TU-nor that we could just as well use "french fries" or "chips", as they have the same meaning of "all types of oblong fried potatoes", the one in American English and the other in British English (though not vice-versa). However, the article happens to have been written originally in American English, and MOS:RETAIN exists to prevent edit-warring over varieties of English, which is heavily frowned-upon by the community. Unfortunately there is no single word that would satisfy MOS:COMMONALITY in indicating "thick-cut french fries" / "chips" to all readers. While I believe that "french fries" to many BE-speaking readers might suggest a thin-cut "McDonalds" style, no convincing argument or evidence has been given that "fries" would intuitively or unambiguously indicate "chips" to those same people instead, so I don't see any advantage to using it. The disadvantage of "fries" is that it's more informal and less suited to an encyclopedic tone, and it doesn't match the main article title. I also believe though, that BE speakers generally understand that AE refers to "chips" as "french fries", and this would not be surprising. If a change is necessary - and I'm not convinced that it is - "thick-cut french fries" would be the least ambiguous to all readers, and more in keeping with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

I also agree that it's a waste of editors' time and energy to have a big debate about it. Nevertheless, I don't believe we should just accept the change to "fries", as no adequate explanation for it based in policy or reliable sources has been given. In opposition to it, I offer the following:

• French fries is only ever applied to skinny fries - Fries can be thick or thin or medium - french fries *aren't* the same as a thick-cut chip - Fries is a broader term with more applicability. I have already addressed this above with the dictionary citations. In American English, "french fries" is a general term that applies to all different types, including British-style thick cut "chips". Thicker cuts may also sometimes be referred to as "steak fries", "house fries", "chips" (only in "fish and chips") or something else, but they are all still understood to be types of french fries:
  • "a lot of different kinds of french fries to love, like shoestring fries, steak fries, crinkle cut fries, and curly fries."[10]
  • "Closer in profile to hefty steak fries than less-substantial fast food semi-shoestrings, Ruthie‘s french fries are among the best I‘ve had"[11]
  • "when we're talking about just french fries, there are so many ways you can have them. There's steak fries, shoestring, curly, waffle, crinkle cut, wedges, and more."[12]
  • "In America, a chip is an English crisp; and an English chip is an American french fry". The Oxford Companion to Food[13]
  • "Chips are French fries." The Cambridge English Dictionary website, definition of "chips".[14]

• only an uncultured dunce would ever refer to a fry from belgium or the netherlands as a french fry
  • The Sydney Morning Herald, considered a newspaper of record in Australia, refers to friets from the Netherlands as "french fries":[15].
  • The BBC refers to "french fries" as the "common name of the dish", in an article about Belgian frieten.[16]
  • Dutch (also Flemish) frieten, as well as friet or patat, most often translated as "french fries", also "chips", or "fries", by professional translators, via Linguee[17], [18], [19]
  • In one article, The Telegraph finds neither "fries" nor "chips" appropriate for the Belgian dish, instead using "frites".[20]

• there's clear evidence based on how the words are used all over the world There is still no evidence provided whatsoever that it's common practice in any place in the world to refer in English to a thick-cut style as "fries" but not as "french fries". Outside of (North) American English, if a distinction is made between thin and thick, thin ones may be called "french fries" or "fries", and thick-cut ones are called "chips", or "finger chips", not "fries".[21] No evidence is presented that someone in Australia or the UK would normally understand the word "fries" to mean what they call "chips" rather than what they call "french fries". The French or Belgian terms (also Dutch and German), mostly variations of pommes frites ("fried potatoes") are not relevant to what we call them in English, on English Wikipedia. For example, while the Dutch may sometimes use the English term "french fries" or "fries" for the ones from McDonalds, they call their domestic ones friet, frieten, or patat, not "fries". See MOS:COMMONNAME and MOS:USEENGLISH.
  • "frit frite frit - de frire adj fried - frite 1. nf (pommes) frites, French fries chips (Brit) (Collins Pro French-English Dictionary)
  • "Pommes / Pommes frites [pɔm ˈfrit] pl chips pl (Brit) French fries" (Collins Pro German-English Dictionary)
  • German "Pommes frites" most often translated as "french fries", also "chips", or "fries", by professional translators, via Linguee[22]

• "Fries is the short-term of french fries" what a joke...the word fries existed long before french fries. There are older senses of the word "fry" as a noun, and it may be that people would acknowledge a category of things that are "fries", including a fish fry, a stir fry, lamb fries, chicken fries, and various other things that are not french fries, but when "fries" is used to refer to "fried pieces of potato, usu. oblong in shape", it is a shortened form of "french fries".(OED 2, "chip") The latter can be traced back to the late 19th century, with attestations of "fries" alone for this sense not arriving until much later:
  • "French fried potatoes" (1856), "french fries" (1886)[23]
  • "French fries" 1901, New York Times, 1903, L.A. Times[24]
  • "by 1918, "French fries", shortened to "fries", had won the name game in the United States and Canada"[25]
  • the Oxford English Dictionary's first attestation of "french fries" is 1902,[26] but "fries" in this sense is not until 1947: "orig. and chiefly N. Amer. A chip (French fry) - 1947 Vidette Messenger (Valparaiso, Indiana) 4 Apr. 5/7 (advt.) Large Hamburger, with Fries."
  • National Geographic says: "According to linguist Stuart Berg Flexner, they were known formally as French fried potatoes until the late 1920s. The name was subsequently shortened, first to French frieds, then French fries, and finally, in the 60s, just plain fries, as in the famous fast-food query, “You want fries with that?[27]

your claim of "french fry" being a more formal term is absolutely ridiculous - the claim of 'french fries' being more formal is totally unsourced and untrue. It was verified based on the usage in the source I cited above, the Oxford Companion to Food. While "fries" may be very common in spoken English, other encyclopedias and academic works generally use the term "french fries". Sometimes the abbreviated "fries" is used later in the work, but the first mention is invariably "french fries". WP:TONE says "encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone" and "has a fairly academic approach". The WP:COMMONNAME policy says "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register", and that we should "observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." It's clear that the significant majority of these primarily use "french fries" above "fries", including:

• Encyclopedias such as the Oxford Companion to Food,[28] Encyclopedia Britannica [29], Ken Albala's Food Cultures of the World Encyclopedia,[30], the Encyclopedia of Jewish Food,[31], the Encyclopedia of Food and Culture, and others.[32].
• Other scientific and academic books such as Elsevier's "Frying",[33] Springer's "Potato Science and Technology"[34] and all others I could find with a quick search.
• Scientific journals, like the World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics, where Greek researchers from Harokopio University use the term "french fries" specifically in relation to gyros,[35], the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition,[36] and all others published on the Nature website that I could find with a quick search.

• By your own claim, french fries and fries mean the same thing, so there should be no reason not to use the term fries. Both terms refer to the same thing. That doesn't mean there is no difference between the terms themselves, the one being less formal. For example, the terms "buttocks" and "butt" mean the same thing, but only the former should be used in an encyclopedia.

In summary, according to the sources and policies cited above:

1. There is so far no evidence for - and much evidence against - the idea that any significant portion of readers of English Wikipedia would naturally understand the word "fries" to mean "thick-cut chips", but not understand "french fries" to mean the same thing.
2. The word "fries" is an abbreviated, less-formal or colloquial form of "french fries". The latter is more suitable in an encyclopedic tone.

The above is also supported by the fact that there is an 18-year consensus that the main article, which covers thin-cut "fries", thick-cut "chips", and all other variations, is properly titled "french fries", and that attempts to move it to a more "international" name such as "French fried potatoes", "fried potato chips", or the present attempt to move it to "fries", have not found any support. I would like to request that the term "french fries" be restored to the section about Greece, where it has been stable without complaint since it was added more than 15 years ago: [37]. --IamNotU (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

There are instances of other types of fries being used instead of french fries in Gyro. Just like how ketchup and mustard is ALWAYS used in Northern Greece, something that I insisted on being included but didn't happen. Because book sources of foreigners are more reliable than statements of actual Greeks, like myself.

Anyway, It's been agreed that this site is hugely biased and arguing against something is completely meaningless.

-- Ronbb345

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.

Mustard and ketchup used ALL THE TIME in Northern Greece

The following discussion 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.

---

I've insisted in the article mentioning that Gyros is served with mustard and ketchup in Northern Greece but I've faced objection by a couple of users here who believe that decade old book referrences that say otherwise are the more reliable sources.

It's not sometimes served with mustard and ketchup. It always is. Ask any Wiki user from Northern Greece and they'll confirm it. If you decide to leave the article as is then you have a meaniglessly biased piece. Ronbb345 (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@WWGB Your source is invalid and you should start taking into account more sources other than books. Ronbb345 (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

So Street Food around the World: An Encyclopedia of Food and Culture, published by a food historian and academic, is invalid? Sorry, but I will trust such books any day over your personal opinion. WWGB (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is, because it is based on the personal experiences of some individuals. If they're actually renowned food historians and academics then they should have been aware of what I'm talking about. Besides, how do we know the way they researched the variations of the food? Did they actually visit many areas of Northern Greece? Did they ask people from the region? What are their sources? I'm speaking as a Greek person. I literally eat the food every month and I've eaten it around various places in Macedonia. It's served with ketchup and mustard everywhere. I've pointed out to you that if you were to ask users from Northern Greece, you'd find they agree with me. My objection to using solely book sources is exactly this. That they're not necessarily always accurate. (Ronbb345)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbb345 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Ronbb345, please review Wikipedia's verifiability policy at WP:V. It's one of the three core content policies and is not optional. Material that is or might be challenged must be verifiable in published sources that meet Wikipedia's definition of reliability. WWGB, I, or any other editor, don't have the choice to take into account sources such as blogs or personal experiences that don't meet that definition. I went to the trouble of finding and adding a reliable published source for your claims about ketchup and mustard in Northern Greece ([38]), since you were not willing to do so. It states "In northern Greece, it is sometimes served with mustard or ketchup." Changing that to "ALL THE TIME", "always", or "most of the time", based on the unpublished say-so of you or anyone else, is simply not possible - even if it's true. That would contravene another of the three core content policies, "no original research", see WP:NOR.

If it is in fact true as you say, then it shouldn't be that difficult to find a reliable, published source for it. If it's really that important to you that it says "most of the time" instead of "sometimes", I suggest you do that. Continuing instead to argue "I don't need to provide a reliable source" ([39]) or repeatedly making the same edits, are against core policies, will not accomplish what you want, and will likely lead to you being blocked from editing.

You're welcome to challenge the reliability of the given source, as you've done above. Nobody else here sees a problem with it, so you'd probably have to go to WP:RSN to try to get support for removing it. However, that would only leave any mention of ketchup and mustard unsourced, and it would then be removed altogether. --IamNotU (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't want reliable sources. You want sources that you specifically find subjectively trustworthy. How do you expect me to find written reports of something so trivial in books? Even the book source you've included makes a quick, trivial referrence to Gyro based on the viewpoint of a tourist. A viewpoint based on what happens in Central and Southern Greece, mainly Athens. Unfortunately, Greece isn't only Athens. Even in the greek page of Gyro, sources aren't required and nobody is complaining exactly cause it's a well known thing about the ingredients used here. But, bias is bias. I've already come to this conclusion judging by my other edits. You win. Keep this version. -- Ronbb345 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbb345 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 29 November 2019 (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.

Previous close was bad, but whatever

Wikipedia apparently is meant to work on consensus, but the previous discussion was closed before i even had a chance to respond to any of the false claims – wow! It's very difficult to answer the queries when all my arguments are ignored and there's no chance to respond to any of the questions put to me. Whatever, have a junk article, but just know that the previous discussion was closed before I could respond to a single thing. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Im quitting wikipedia anyway, have it your way. There's no point wasting my time reading hundreds of academic sources to solve problems when people just want to push an agenda. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is that further discussion about the utterly subjective distinction between "French fries", "fries", "chips", "thick cut fries" or any more meaningless, trivial and argumentative distinctions among fried potatoes would be counterproductive. Please drop the subject and move along to actually improving the encylopedia. If you want to quibble instead, plenty of other websites allow that behavior. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

People began the quibble by prohibiting me from using the word fries (based on no evidence)...yet i get the blame me for an edit war they started. Yeah, makes sense, no bias here whatsoever. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please take this debate to another website. It is no longer appropriate for this talk page. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's no longer appropriate for this talk page because it goes against your bias?! Are you even remotely serious right now?! You're not even hiding it! You're directly telling us that we can't complain because you don't agree with us. Hahahahah. Gosh, this site is a joke!

-- Ronbb345 (Greek person who's knowledge is valued less than than foreigner tourist book sources)

Well, even though ive been gagged from talking about fried potatoes, I believe im still allowed to talk about mustard and ketchup. I had already uploaded a source about the mustard and ketchup, yet it was ignored. Fancy thinking that a source from the USA written by someone with no expertise in Greek cuisine is somehow more accurate that a professional Greek business. "In northern Greece gyros is served with mustard or ketchup instead of yoghourt." Note no use of the term "sometimes". http://www.explorecrete.com/cuisine/gyros.html Apples&Manzanas (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, Apples & Manzanas. I think I also included this source a while ago when I was trying to add mustard and ketchup as the ingredients used. I can also provide a video that shows a gyro being served with mustard and ketchup but, hey, unless it comes from a book it doesn't count as a source on this site. Don't forget that. No website, no photo, no video, not even a Greek person speaking from personal experience and knowledge is superior to a random book source. But I see the people here have already take the authoritarian method and blocked editing. -- Ronbb345 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbb345 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Prescriptivism

The Greek pronunciation is [ˈʝiros], though English speakers frequently mispronounce it as /ˈdʒaɪroʊ/ on account of its spelling. Better pronunciations for the dish would be /ˈjɪəroʊ/ or /ˈɡɪəroʊ/.

Wikipedia isn't a prescriptive guide on the correct use of language and shouldn't be policing dialects. This is not cited and just seems like one individual's opinion on how the word should be said. PenJackrabbit (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Gyro" as the standard English spelling

Moved from User talk:Wolfdog

 – Wolfdog (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wolfdog, if you want to talk about a Greek dish, do it the courtesy of giving it its Greek name. If you want to talk about an American dish which uses a bastardised (and grammatically nonsensical) re-invention of the same name based on a misunderstanding that the word is plural, call it an American dish with Greek roots. Similarly if you want to say that Americans typically use a different name, for a Greek dish, which many sources would endorse, by all means do so. Nations make mistakes about other nations, lots of Americans refer to Queen Elizabeth as the "Queen of England', 200 million people doing so wouldn't make it less wrong, not different, just wrong. I understand WP logic, but what point is WP if it simply endorses misunderstanding. I don't and wouldn't have the slightest objection to the article saying that in USA the dish is very frequently called 'gyro', but the Greek dish never is or would be. Whales are not fish, regardless of how many people think so. Pincrete (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pincrete: This is a battle that has to be fought over and over again. The current core truth of the science of linguistics is that language always changes. We can perceive it in this scientific, neutral, and broader-view way, or we can perceive in a negative and judgmental way that "everything is a bastardization/deterioration/inferiorization of an earlier thing." The current English phrase "How are you?" as said to friends is, using your logic, a sad bastardization of the earlier "How art thou?" And "How art thou?" is then a bastardization of the original ("better") Old English "Hu eart thu?" And on and on. So, according to this thinking, we're all just speaking a "broken" or "mistaken" form of Old English, which itself was a broken and mistaken form of Proto-Germanic, etc. Language changes. This is an English-language encyclopedia. (Oops! "Encyclopedia" is just a bastardization of the actual Latin spelling of ENKUKLOPAEDEIA, or myriad other variant spellings from hundreds of years ago.)

According to the British Oxford dictionary, the current/predominant English spelling of this Greek dish name is gyro. The American Dictionary.com arrives at the exact same conclusions. No one here is trying to demean the Greek people or culture. In fact, Greeks use an entirely separate alphabet, as I assume you're well aware. So even "gyros" would be a transliteration of the original Greek spelling. This encyclopedia is not about what "a majority of people whose culture this comes from say", it's about what "a majority of English speakers would say"... which is gyro. (And, even so, I never contested removing the "s" at any point.) Wolfdog (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

(For an analogy, see the article Sherry: a well-established English word for a type of wine. Using your logic, we should insist that this be written/pronounced "Jerez" and that the modern English word is but a discourtesy to the Spanish people. Wolfdog (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC))

Then there is the development of 'pea' from 'pease'. Donald Albury 18:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly! And the same process gave us cherry from the original cherise; in fact, see a Merriam-Webster article on this very process. Wolfdog (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The Oxford dictionary explicitly says "North American - An item of food made with slices of spiced meat cooked on a spit, served with salad in pitta bread. It doesn't even mention any current/predominant English spelling of this Greek dish Further, every one of the 6 sources used in the Cambridge dictionary 'examples of use' section for the food, is a US news outlet. Again no mention of predominant use/spelling anywhere. Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, a previous relevant discussion has already happened here. Note IamNotU and Macrakis's arguments in particular. Wolfdog (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me make myself clear, it is obvious that every English word has evolved from one or other languages, that hardly needs saying and it is obviously encyclopaedic info to include what a thing is called in any significant part of the world - whether it be a food or a concept or a place, and of course I understand that language evolves and people coin new words, new spellings and use old words in new ways. I'm not an idiot who wants to speak archaic English/Greek or Latin. Yes of course 'gyros' is a transliteration, though Latin script is much used and almost universally understood in modern Greece, and essential to internet use etc. I also understand that we write articles about Rome and Florence, not their 'native' names.

HOWEVER, to write an article about Rome which did NOT explicitly state the 'native' name, or that implied that the 'native' name was NOT usually used, or in some way 'wrong' simply because there are more Eng speakers than Italian speakers, would fail to supply basic information and insult both Rome and the readership. The sources on this article aren't great, I haven't checked recently, but until recently they included travel articles and restaurant reviews - both of which are written to a near-advert purpose, and neither of which is known for in-depth background checking or knowledge. If I remember correctly, all of the sources going into any depth about history etc or about the food in Greece use 'gyros', all of those using the short-form are US (I don't know about Australia, where there is a sizable Gk diaspora, but neither the word 'gyros', nor any variant, nor the food itself is known in UK - doner kebab, which is a similarly cooked Cypriot food is the nearest thing).

I don't have the slightest objection to saying that outside Gr, it is commonly/usually known by the short form, just as I don't have the slightest objection to saying - as we do now - that outside Greece, it is often other meats, other forms, other condiments. If they serve gyros in some parts of the US or elsewhere in the world with jelly and peanut butter rather than tzadziki or yoghourt, let's record that fact! But let's not imply that this is the common Gk dish, because it is simply uninformative to do so, as IMO is failing to make the 'native' name clear. Pincrete (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Equally I don't object to saying that 'gyro' is a mainly US dish with Gk roots - this is also sourcable, but you can't call it a Gk dish and then give it a US name. A name which was almost certainly based on a misconception that 'gyros' was intrinsically plural. It's both crass and uninformative!Pincrete (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

As an Aussie, I can say that the spelling here is almost always "gyros",[40] occasionally "yeeros".[41] I have never seen a shop selling "gyro". WWGB (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Pincrete: OK, so are we good? (Otherwise, maybe I'm missing what your goal is. On this article, we do explicitly state the 'native' name already.) WWGB: I believe you, but, also, for all I know you're showing me signs where the singular "gyro" is being pluralized as "gyros". This is presumably common in all English dialects (certainly in mine), where a sign saying "Subs, Pizza, and Gyros" is typically understood as using a plural form, with "gyro" being the countable singular noun. That said, I again believe you that the etymological "s" is in fact retained in Australia. Wolfdog (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

One of the two sources (OED), which you say justify 'typical' or 'general' use in English explicitly says 'North American'. Every example of use cited by Cambridge is a US news source, if you choose "UK English' on the Cambridge site, you only get examples of the use as a short-form of gyroscope, because the food and the word are unknown in the UK. So no, we aren't 'good'. I don't mind if we say in N. America often/usually/typically anglicized as … nor in some countries often/usually/typically anglicized as … , but the sources which YOU provided don't support the anglicization as a general phenomen in most/all forms of English, and certainly not in Gk. The claim that the US short-form arouse out of a plural misunderstanding is made in a book on American English usage which is linked to in the discussion a few years ago, though I had heard the claim before. I have no idea whether it is true, but it seems wholly plausible. Pincrete (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, none of these dictionaries suggest that "gyros" is the mainstream (or even a variant) spelling in English. If anything, these dictionaries are suggesting that the concept of a "gyro" itself is not well-known outside of North America (regardless of whether the word is spelled "gyro" or "gyros"). [... which I assume is a bit out-of-date nowadays.] But I think we'll have to leave it. Dictionaries don't seem to be presenting "gyros" as a singular noun option at all. The Cambridge Dictionary, for example, presents "gyro" as both British and American. That's why I, as an afterthought, added it. Wolfdog (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Why are we discussing dictionaries, and even worse, interpreting them? There are a reasonable number of 'book' sources including some food history sources that establish that the default name is 'gyros', which of course is approximately the Gk name rendered in Latin script. There are also lots of sources (inc dictionaries and US news sources and similar) that establish that - fairly colloquially - in the US, 'gyros' is often/ordinarily treated as the plural, with the 's' being dropped for the singular. None of these establish a 'typical' or 'normal' use except in the sense that there are more Americans than Eng-speakers from other nations. Apart from being its own form of prescriptivism IMO - where the biggest nation gets to establish what is 'normal' - referring to the short-form as 'typical' is less informative. People experience language 'locally', we all tend to know what is normal in our own variant of English and to be less familiar (and not infrequently aghast) at other variants. Why can't we just say that the shortened ('anglcized') form is often used in the US/some countries ? It's what the balance of best sources establish. Pincrete (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is you have not given evidence that what the US/some countries do (e.g. "gyro") is not the English-speaking norm (or even that a singular noun "gyros" is the English-speaking norm). It's not clear why dictionaries are a bad source in your opinion; it's not clear which sources you think are improvements except a reasonable number of 'book' sources (Which ones??); it's especially not clear why you think I'm being a prescriptivist. The question is "Is gyro typical or is gyros typical for the singular form"? All dictionaries we've referred to (I've referred to, really) only show that gyro is typical. You're mis-equating an observation about what actually is the most typical with a pushy judgment about what's best or most proper or correct (i.e. prescriptivism). Wolfdog (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Neither Oxford nor Cambridge dictionaries even mention what is typical. OED overtly states N.American, Cambridge implicitly does so. Neither mentions Greek/Greece and Cambridge thinks the dish is made of lamb, which is only true of the US dish. M Webster is similar, thinks it's usually lamb or beef and again doesn't say it is talking about a Gk dish. The only things these prove, beyond the obvious WP norm that dictionaries aren't a very good source, is what we know already - i.e. that there is a US dish called 'gyro'. We could probably extrapolate backwards from the sources we have that the US dish is a variant of a Gk pork dish called 'gyros'. I've said from the beginning that the combination of describing the dish as 'Gk' and imposing a US name extracted from a similar US variant of that dish is what is unacceptable. The best sources we have are book-length food histories and food encycs, they aren't susceptible to the 'localisation' that relatively local US 'soft news', 'food features' and restaurant reviews etc are. They are the nearest we can get to the academic sources which WP always prefers. AFAI am aware, every one of those book sources when describing a food which originated in Greece and which is still available in Greece, plus some travel sources (also describing foods available in Greece), all use 'gyros'. Thus it is established that the normal term in the English language for this particular food is 'gyros', which of course is only the latinisation of the original Gk word. Unless we live in a world where 'Greek' has come to mean, what a non-Greek local paper describing a local take-away calls 'Greek', - rather than what specialist book sources call the food available in Greece - unless we live in that world, then 'gyros' is shown to be the name used to describe the Gk food by those who are food specialists. When book sources start describing the food available in Greece as 'gyro' then we might meaningfully talk about prescriptivism, until then we are talking about a Gk dish and a US food which is a variant of the Gk dish. The US has changed the food and anglicized the name. Fair enough, we have always recorded that fact and should do so neutrally, but whales are not fish. Arguing that is not only insisting on using the best sources accurately, it is also being more informative. Since when did a one sentence dictionary definition carry more weight than books written by food, food history, or travel specialists? Ditto news sources, food/restaurant reviews etc. Pincrete (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Having looked back at our sources, it turns out that I'm not quite right in the above - although I still hold that the only rational way to describe any 'national-ised' dish is to use the name and spelling used by Eng sources when describing the actual national dish - not variants of it sold elsewhere. By national-ised dish I mean an article which starts with "is an Indian/French/Gk etc food/drink" ie you can't start an article "Fish and chips/ roast beef" is a British food" and then refer throughout to the French variant food preperation, cooking or spelling. You can of course 'de-nationalise' the dish - (as we kind of do with pizza), and can later refer to any variants, whether French or otherwise.

Having looked back at the 'book' sources we use, and others that refer directly to the Gk food, they aren't as clear-cut as I claimed above and thay are fairly inconsistent on almost all matters, as are the ones on the related 'doner kebab' article. Regarding the immediate matter of the name spelling, most 'book' sources use the 'gyros' form, one uses the gyro form, and a travel-guidish article uses both gyros is and gyros are most of the time, (no problem - fish is/are) but then throws a spanner in the works by occassionally writing a gyro is. The various sources claim that 'gyros' was either invented in the US or Greece and some time between the 1920's Turkish/Gk exchange of populations and the 1970's. Most think it to be a distictive Gk variant on an Ottoman cooking method. Practically everyone thinks the Gk version is made with small whole pieces derived from the trimmings of pork, while the US version seems to be usually made of 'ground' lamb or beef. The doner article confuses thing further. According to one source (The Guardian), the doner was reportedly invented in the 1950s by a Turkish-Cypriot (I think), in Berlin. While most sources say late 1890s and we use here a picture of a street-seller from the mid-1800s selling something an awful lot like a 'doner'.

I appreciate that what I say next is WP:OR, (which is akin to original sin on WP), but as far as I can work out, (looking at sources, at pictures and knowing the relevant countries fairly well, except USA and Cyprus), what is sold as a 'gyro/s' in the US is what is called a doner-kebab in the UK (UK ones are always lamb, with a lot of 'binder' and US seem to be often beef, UK ones slit a stiff oval pitta and put the filling inside, other countries 'wrap' a softer pitta into a cone). All of these are recognisably similar to the lamb dish sold in Cyprus and Turkey among both ethnic Gks and Turks. The only thing that the Gk version appears to share with any of these, is the vertical 'spit-grill' method of cooking and the fact that it is a meat and salad 'street-food' - though 'intact' grilled pork is as different from pulverised lamb or beef as a steak is fom a low-ish grade sausage!

I don't know where that leaves us beyond re-learning that we are always at the mercy of the quality of the sources we use and here they are even less consistent than I thought. I still hold that you cannot call a dish Gk and then describe the variant dish, or variant name adopted in one Eng speaking country, though I have no objection to 'de-nationalising' the opening sentence or adopting an "in some countries/in N. American known as" form of words. Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

ps I've no idea where the Australian version fits into all this, neither the sources nor WWGB's pictures make that clear! Pincrete (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't ever an editor on this page before and was never focused on issues like whether the main ingredient is pork or steak or lamb. And obviously if we're talking about two separate food items (a more original Greek one and a now-distinguishable Americanized variant), that's completely beyond my wheelhouse or the point of my original edits here. If we need two separate articles, one for each topic, that's fine... assuming sources confirm that indeed two separate concept exist. All I ever did was look at the first sentence, felt shock at the weak qualifier of "sometimes", and found that the first three English-language dictionaries I consulted agreed with my experience that "gyro" is the singular form (and that in fact no "gyros" exists, as far as they're concerned). Perhaps a third voice can be a tie-breaking vote here. I think we've gone way down the rabbithole and, as I've said, way beyond my pay-grade. Wolfdog (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You aren't at fault, and I apologise if I got a bit 'shirty'. The confusion goes way back and embraces the related 'doner' article. I myself stayed away for a long time because I could see some of the confusion. I think what we have is several distinct foods, cooked and served in a broadly similar fashion, (upright grill, served in pitta or a 'bready' wrap, usually with salad and sometimes fried potatoes) which have sometimes overlapping names. We also don't have the greatest of sources by WP standards. I personally don't see a simple fix, but if you don't object, I'll change the "typically anglicized to gryo" into "in some countries anglicized to gyro" - the dictionaries and US news articles support this name as being normal in N America. They don't really say what either the food is, nor what the name is, elsewhere. Pincrete (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 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: Moved. Consensus is that the primary topic is established, if nothing else since the proposed new title is already a PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article. Furthermore, opposition is not based in policy or guidelines. Pointing out ambiguity in a primary topic situation is pointless; ambiguity is a given. So what? Also, “title doesn’t sufficiently establish what the subject is” is not relevant to WP:CRITERIA. The proposed title is the most common name of the topic. That’s undisputed and sufficient by definition. Come on, folks. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 06:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Gyros (food) → Gyros – Gyros is the primary topic, disambiguation is not required. WWGB (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, what about Gyros (moth) and gyroplanes ? Dr. Vogel (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • There is no article called "Gyros", the title is going to waste. WWGB (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • yes, but that could hold a disambiguation page. Can you show us any evidence that the one you want is actually the primary topic? Dr. Vogel (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • "Gyro" is a very common contraction for gyroscope, also seen in phrases gyro-action, gyro-stabilized etc. I'd say Gyros (the food) was a poor choice for primary even if it were my favorite. Doug butler (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
      • I'm inclined to say Gyros should be a disamb page or at least redirect to Gyro, unless there is a clear case for a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC) P.S. WP:PLURAL is the other consideration of course. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It already redirects here as the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, so there is no need for the parenthetical disambiguation in the title. The moth stub is taken care of by the hatnote. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment There was an RM in 2011 that found consensus to move the article from "Gyros" to "Gyro (food)". It was boldly moved away from that name to the current title in August 2021. Colin M (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, that's a minefield. Of course, unless we have in this RM another long discussion on gyro~gyros, the closure should be followed by a move back to Gyro (food) per that consensus from 2011. But the spelling was discussed again in 2018 and in the the discussion above (which is still ongoing). From these I can glean two things. First, gyro is by far the most common spelling in English and is the form found in virtually all dictionaries. Second, doubts have been expressed about whether what is meant by gyro in the English-speaking world is the same as the gyros of Greek cuisine in Greece. So this leads into the bigger question: if these are different things, which one should this article be about? Or whether the article should be about any of them at all – see this 2011 thread which proposed a merge with the article about doner kebab, which resulted in a long but apparently inconclusive discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Although the term might be available, the title doesn't sufficiently establish what the subject is and given the use of the word as a short-form of gyroscope, and as a prefix, the parenthetical info is a useful, if not technically essential, clarifier IMO . Pincrete (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't insert disambiguation parentheticals into titles unless it is necessary because another article shares the same title, which it does not in this particular case. And "gyro" is a slang term for gyroscope, not "gyros". Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't remember the exact policy wording, but we do require that a title be clear enough to adequately identify the topic, not simply that it be unique, I personally often find that I end up landing on articles that have failed to identify themselves clearly and WP's search function demands a re-type. My logic on this name is that "gyros" does not satisfy the 'clarity' requirement, whether a parenthesis is the best way to achieve clarity is a separate question. In the case of 'gyros', the word isn't particularly ambiguous, but it isn't very clear either. Pincrete (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

And yet, articles like kokoretsi, loukaniko, pastitsio, souvlaki and taramasalata require no "parenthetical info" (disambiguation). Funny, that. WWGB (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that most editors prefer article titles to be as short as possible. I personally think that it would be good if article titles were clearer, especially as you have to re-type if you end up on the wrong article, as I often do. It isn't like reading the first sentence in a paper encyclopaedia, then flicking on an item/page or two, if you've landed in the wrong place. It is part of policy is it not that the article title clearly identify the subject, not simply be a unique name? I personally would immediately recognise all but one of those foods, but many readers wouldn't. Pincrete (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom, already the PRIMARYREDIRECT, and clearly primary for this spelling.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support clear primary, confusion with a gyroscope (or their shortened form of gyro) shouldn't be an issue per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Turnagra (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2022 (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.