Talk:Frozen meal

message: I suggest forking or splitting to the modern "skillet meal" which is referred to late in this article.  Far from a "TV dinner", I think they should have their own "see also" article.  Also, the last section in very UK-centric.  Is their a template I can use to whine about that? Huw Powell (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I don't think this talk page should have been archived.  The archive is small, and contains threads I think are still currently pertinent. Huw Powell (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2010 comments by [[User:Huw Powell]]

message: Birdseye marketed the frozen dinner for one in the UK from 1960s.  It was in a covered aluminium tray which you lifted one corner to allow the Yorkshire pudding to rise.  In the UK they were never referred to as TV dinner's though. (86.129.36.187 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK 

message: I see there in the history section, this line "the pewter tray with aluminum foil covering could be heated directly in the oven..."
Is this true?  Were "TV dinners" ever packaged in pewter trays?  Isn't pewter kind of heavy and stiff? I realize that pewter is not particularly expensive, but is it too expensive to be used as a disposable container?  I imagine if pewter TV dinner trays were built like pewter beer mugs then people might have saved them for other use.  Unless you can make a pewter foil.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8A00:2890:3D0E:DC30:530D:E06E (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Pewter would also melt at about the temperature that TV dinners were heated.  I've updated the page. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pewter Tray 

message: The History section of this article has had a tag added to it that claims it may have original research.  Unfortunately, since the section already has several sources cited (at least five), it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain which claims the tagger considers to be original research.  There is one statement "Swanson far exceeded its expectations, and ended up selling more than 10 million of these dinners in the first year of production." that (appropriately) has a "citation needed" tag on it, but that's not original research-looking, it's lack of sourcing.
:Then why post this statement at all? Did someone just pull it out of the air? It certainly reads that way, along with all the other breezy "facts" sprinkled through the article. Without a source, these statements have no validity or value. 73.173.114.38 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: Article says 1962; here is a Swanson ad from May 1968 which uses it.  Relgif (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My memory says that the term "TV Dinner" was still being used in the 1970s, but I have nothing to back it up but gray hairs. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did Swanson stop using the name "TV Dinner"? 

message: Specifically the origin of the name. The claim that it's because of the shape may have a cite but it's obviously false: The original TV Dinner had three triangular sections, it did not have a "sidebar" arrangement like a television. This is even shown in the images used in the article. I can't access the cite to see if it's being misread or misrepresented, but there's a contradictory statement from Gerald Thomas here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzlkO8LIWrs
I don't know if it's a good enough source but the fact the remains that the article as it stands states something which is clearly false.
:The photo, however (despite the caption) is not of a 1950s era TV dinner but a 1960s era one -- with the added 4th compartment for a dessert, as stated elsewhere in the article (and as accords with my personal memory). I can't speak to the very first TV dinners, but in the years immediately before the 4-compartment ones, they did have three roughly triangular compartments. --Gambaguru (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with History Section 

message: It is mentioned that the first non-foil ("microwave-safe") tray was introduced in 1986. When was the last foil tray sold? How long did it take for the entire industry to switch from trays designed for "regular ovens" to those designed for microwaves? 24.14.200.215 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of oven-only ready meals are still sold in foil trays.  I doubt they will go away any time soon. — Smjg (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last foil tray? 

message: While following a couple of the article's external links, I noticed that Pinnacle Foods has dropped the Swanson name from its Hungry Man line of frozen dinners, per the expiration of the 10-year brand-licensing agreement with Campbell Soup (Swanson's parent company). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson#Other_frozen_dinners 
  
Details on this might be added to the History section of this article, and the appropriate Swanson links updated. — DennisDallas (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swanson appears to have exited the frozen dinner market 

message: It is stated as a fact that the name TV dinner came "from the shape of the tray it was served on". I always thought that it was so-called because it was often eaten in front of the TV.  Can either origin be ruled out?Royalcourtier (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: @Royalcourtier - Could be a circular citation (from Wikipedia), but there is this. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on TV dinner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060908053345/http://www.swansonmeals.com:80/WebPortals/Default.aspx?tabid=29 to http://www.swansonmeals.com/WebPortals/Default.aspx?tabid=29
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on TV dinner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141227044916/http://impactnews.com/austin-metro/san-marcos-buda-kyle/night-hawk-frozen-foods/ to http://impactnews.com/austin-metro/san-marcos-buda-kyle/night-hawk-frozen-foods/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118002759/http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/healthydiet/ to http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/healthydiet/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: An ad introducing the turkey dinner in the Boston Globe, March 26, 1954, includes the line "Skip cooking entirely the night of your favorite TV shows." It goes on to also suggest serving them to your bridge club and eating one when you're home alone, so the main thrust is it's a labor-saving convenience. Still, the connection is there between watching TV and not having to cook while your shows are on. Does it make sense to cook the dinner while watching TV, then stop watching to eat it? Sounds to me like the point is you cook and then you eat, all while you're watching TV, hence the name. 108.20.114.62 (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper approach on Wikipedia is to research name origins and (especially) document what secondary sources describe to us about how names have come about. "Sounds to me" is not only not a sufficient approach, it's also not encouraged. Additionally, 1954 may not be far enough back to get to the core, original motivations behind naming. I'm going to be trying to really investigate this "name origin" matter, as it does appear to have some possible embellishments added by people or entities who may have some motivations of self influencing them. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  why "TV dinner"? 

message: :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: Overall, most editors oppose the previous name of "TV dinner", and the option that has the most support is Frozen meal, on the grounds that it covers other meals besides dinners. After relisting for a week, no more comments appeared so this close is final (barring appeals to WP:MR).   (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Frozen meal → ? – Current name appears to be a non-generic trademark which was only used in a particular region. Previous move requests seem to have gotten hung up on the "common" part of WP:COMMONNAME while ignoring the "recognisable" part. The current title is not particularly descriptive and could easily refer to numerous subjects (is it a dinner you order through a teleshopping programme? Is it a meal whose recipe was provided by a celebrity chef in a TV appearance? etc.) and a more WP:PRECISE title, possibly a WP:NDESC, which allows for international WP:COMMONALITY in understanding should probably be found. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: this page was renamed from  to Frozen meal, then this request was reopened and relisted, which resulted in a malformed request. So this move request has been altered to reflect the title change. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Alternately, we can keep content concerning frozen dinners at this article, and move other content to Convenience food. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disagree. The first edit was clearly about "TV dinners", and so the most consistent edit history should stay here. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the first edit it seems that this article was originally about the specific brand known as "TV Dinners". It may make sense to keep this article as an article about that topic while creating a separate article for "Microwave Meals". The current article is a mess and that's likely due to a lack of a clear subject matter. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Mild Oppose.  "TV dinner" is extremely WP:PRECISE.  It's what the word means.  It's in the dictionary. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it WP:PRECISE? A term appearing in the dictionary does not establish recognisability either. As I stated before, a "TV Dinner" could easily be numerous other things, and since this article doesn't refer to dinners which are made using televisions (but rather just dinners which a marketer in the 1950s believed people may want to eat while watching television) it doesn't seem appropriate. Looking at others concerns I'm starting to believe that splitting most of this article's contents into separate "Frozen meal" and "Microwave meal" articles, while retaining the current title (possibly with a change of capitalisation) for an article specifically about the original brand would be most appropriate. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: TV dinner is WP:PRECISE because it clearly identifies the topic of the article.  The claim that it can mean other things was wrong, which is why I brought this up.  The argument could still be made that "Frozen dinner" or "Frozen meal" better identify the topic. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

text: *Move to Frozen meal – per BD2412. Ajshul 😃 13:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 March 2021 

message: The images currently adorning this article seem to be of lower quality than what we should aim for.
* The Currywurst and fries platter has a ripped tray, and there seems to be a stray slice of sausage resting with the fries.
* The country fried chicken meal seems appropriate, though the lighting feels industrial/cafeteria quality, rather than what one might find in a home where these meals are eaten.
* The carbonara container on a plate seems darkly lit, and it's more of an entree, not a "meal" (if one thinks of meals as having multiple courses).
If it were up to me, I would suggest maybe keeping the "Country fried chicken" image, removing the other two images, and perhaps including other images, like:
* Top view to present a standard member of the class
* The "after heating" version of the country fried chicken meal, which if repurposed as a "before" and "after" collage, would better serve the reader's understanding
* A grocery freezer featuring different frozen meals
* Historical advertisement for an iconic brand
I'd be happy to hear what others think before I go chopping away at the article. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images used in the article