Talk:Fish and chips

message: Is this picture appropriate for the article? The actual fish and chips is so small that it's hard to see, especially in the thumbnail. The beach and the two guys sitting on it take up most of the space. JIP | Talk 13:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how the woman on the left would feel about the "two guys" description, but that goes to show you that it's hard to tell what's going on in this picture. It's not a good photo, I'd say go ahead and delete or replace it. Also, do we really need to be advertising Gordon Ramsay's restaurant? --IamNotU (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good heavens. Did those poor folks know they were being photographed?! (Is the one on the right Mr Ronay?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the image from the article. JIP | Talk 21:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In fairness, a lot of the images in this article are unneeded. How many photos of fish and chips does one need to get the handle on what it is? I support the removal, certainly. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  21:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: thumb|right|Patzcuaro fish and chips
I found this image in the category "Fish and chips in Mexico" at Commons. Is this really fish and chips? There is certainly fish in the picture, and chips, but the fish don't appear to be battered or deep-fried. Therefore I think this represents "fish" and "chips" but not "fish and chips". JIP | Talk 15:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point? Are you proposing to add this to the article? No, that should not be done. --IamNotU (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am asking whether the food in the picture is "fish and chips" or not. JIP | Talk 16:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish and chips in Mexico 

message: I'm no culinary researcher, especially not in English cuisine, but should this be added to the English cuisine category article? I mean fish and chip shops is literally  a section in the normal English Cuisine article. ECPBlue (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  British cuisine 

message: I recall hearing on the radio (NPR) about the cotton industry history. This program mentioned the growth of cottonseed exports to Britain along with the cotton itself for the oil to be used for fish and chips. This seems sensible as the oil was certainly available and Lancashire was both an origin of commercial fish and chips as well as a cotton textile center. A quick examination didn't turn up info about cottonseed and fish and chips but the assertion that animal fat was the primary source doesn't wash. The volume of oil required suggests something in addition to those sources.24.93.109.183 (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So how much oil was required? Why could that amount not be met with animal fat alone? And what period are we talking about, anyway? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

text: You'll need references to back it up, but it doesn't sound right. There's always been plenty of animal fats and tallow in the UK plus other oils, so it doesn't seem likely. Canterbury Tail talk 20:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the oil 

message: Are chips a type of french fry?  Or are they something else entirely?  Editors who are interested in this question are encouraged to join the discussion at Talk:Chip butty#Are chips a type of french fry?.  (Please post there and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place.  Thanks.)  — Mudwater (Talk) 22:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chips: a philosophical inquiry 

message: In the Choice of fish subsection (the first subsection within Composition), the first paragraph mentions "… vendors also sell many other kinds of fish, especially other white fish, such as pollock, hake or coley, plaice, skate, ray, and huss or rock salmon (a term covering several species of dogfish and similar fish)." [Note: All links removed from the quote except the relevant one.] That given description of rock salmon does not match the description of "rock salmon" on the rock salmon page. The rock salmon page is for a separate dish called "rock salmon", which seems to me to be distinct from the dish of fish and chips here.
My questions are, first, am I just missing something here, and does it all actually make sense? (I’m not from a culture that eats much fish and chips, so perhaps this is just me misunderstanding terminology or something.) 
Second, assuming it’s not just me, then how is this issue corrected? Should there be a new, separate article to which this points, something like Rock salmon (types of fish), with a basic description that reads something like "Rock salmon is a term covering several species of dogfish and similar fish, which are commonly used in fish and chips in the United Kingdom and Ireland."? Or should the current rock salmon page be amended in some way to clarify the different meanings, if perhaps the two are more closely linked than I realized?
I wasn’t sure what to do here, so I figured I’d add it to the talk page. Just some food – specifically fish and chips – for thought! Phatmatt12188 (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the image on the rock salmon page is misleading, as is the statement there that it is "a dish popular in Britain, based on shark...".   The photo is apparently from a restaurant in Santorini, Greece - https://www.flickr.com/photos/jabbarman/2600406103/ - and I have no idea what species it shows.  I have never seen a dish like it in Britain - though I'm sure it could be done - and have never known rock salmon outside the context of it being sometimes part of fish and chips.  I think the solution is to amend the rock salmon page - which I've now done.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The rock salmon mention in this article seems correct, it's the actual rock salmon article that needs just a little tweaking. Canterbury Tail talk 19:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock salmon: wrong link? 

message: Because fish and chips was not invented in England so the place of origin is wrong. Fish and chips was invented in Portugal. So putting as England is misinformation. Rin1990 (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The first website is that of a restaurant and hence isn't considered a reliable source. The same probably also applies for the second website, but that doesn't matter, because it says , which explicitly contradicts your claim. Liu1126 (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2024