# Talk:English cuisine

Something something WP:BRD, though I didn't think it would be controversial to swap this for that. I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed. How can you stand behind the preposterous suggestion that grey mound of sludge is archetypal coronation chicken, a dish noted for its distinct colour?
I agree there are in fact no good pictures of coronation chicken on Wikimedia. Someone should change this. In the meantime though, I support yellow indistinct mound of sludge over white indistinct mound of sludge. It's also worth noting that the picture I changed it to is the one in use on the main Coronation Chicken article. I would like to hear more about your reasoning to the contrary @Chiswick Chap BrigadierG (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. We may need a better picture, or the colour balance may need to be adjusted, or someone forgot the turmeric; but the other picture was worse. If anyone can take a decent one, that'd be great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
In what way was it worse? I'm not sure there are many faults worse than coronation chicken looking grey. Let's try to be objective here. Perhaps a useful question to ask is "which photo would be more useful to a person trying to identify coronation chicken when visiting England" - since that is what Encyclopedias were originally (reference guides).  BrigadierG (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Neither photo is very good. Sorry, but the awful grey membranes depicted in "Pollo Coronación" and presented on a plate with a too-busy design are unappetizing, to say the least. At least the version buried in yellow sauce looks edible, unlike the other ghastly production. Carlstak (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
The images are not good, and do not depict a 1953-recipe coronation chicken either. Constance Spry's original recipe called for mayonnaise (naturally yellow), curry powder (which contained chilli, turmeric, and other spices, adding yellow), red wine (yeah, red), and apricots (yeah, orange) but not raisins, which were added in ghastly 1970s versions of the dish. If anyone would care to make the dish properly --- hell, I could make one! --- and photograph it decently, it'd be appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
You know what? This is now my god-given mission. I shall create new knowledge untold for future generations. I shall do what 20 years of Wikipedia editors could not.
I shall prepare coronation chicken that doesn't look like shit. BrigadierG (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Hooray! ;-) Carlstak (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Congrats, BrigadierG, you did it. Your new Coronation chicken photo looks infinitely better than the Pollo Coronación version. Personally, I'm not crazy about the viscous yellow sauce (nature of the dish I guess). So how did it taste? That's what really counts. Carlstak (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
It's among my favourite sandwich fillings (alongside prawn mayo and ham + chutney) and it was bloody lovely as far as I'm concerned. BrigadierG (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
No accounting for taste ;-} but thank you very much for the work, and the photo. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The 'quality' section reads suspiciously like an extended rant by someone who is mad about the stereotypes about British food. I understand the sentiment but this is a Wikipedia article not a persuasion essay. If it's worth having a section about the "British food is bland" stereotype, then it should include information about where that stereotype comes from, who believes it and why, and its cultural influence, as well as context and examples of it being an untrue generalization- not just an argument for why the stereotype is unfair in the opinion of the author. It would also be good if it didn't read like we're mad about it.
68.175.32.210 (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I'm not sure if "mad about" carries the UK sense of "passionate for" or the US sense of "angry about" and it doesn't matter, as the section is in fact neutral. It's based on the sources it cites, which neutrally state the case for views of low quality, and views for the opposite. It is certain that both positions have been held, and the reasons for them are given in the article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)