Talk:Lasagna
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What an Italian told me.
I had a very close friend who told me that in Italy the mutation of lasagna over time has taken from it's original seed's of cooking pot and generally means, anything you have on hand throw in the pot, or americanized "leftovers". Does anyone have information to correlate this? Please feel free to contact me at jrnokes@norod.net. Thanks in advance....Jerry
== Ragu? == it used as a source
Is the use of Ragu on this page neccesary? It sounds like a brand placement rather than a cultural formality?
- Ragù in Italian is any meat-based sauce, not a specific brand. See it:Ragù. 66.92.237.111 03:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Lasagne vs. Lasagna
Google says: Lasagna is more popular (search limited for English-language pages). bogdan | Talk 21:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- That shows that there are more Americans than Brits writing about it, I suppose. Restricting to "site:uk" gets 36000 for -a and 168000 for -e. 66.92.237.111 03:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know how this affects an English page and usage, but lasagna would be the Italian singular form of the word, while lasagne is the plural. Pnkrockr 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It's strange that US English has chosen the singular form lasagna, but not spaghetto or macarono, for example.
I've checked Italian pages; as I expected, I got 487,000 "lasagne" compared to a (still surprisingly high) 187,000 "lasagna". And I note that the stupid spelling corrector in my web browser highlights "lasagne" as wrong. *sigh*. In any case, the discrepancy at least merits mention on the main page. I'll consider doing that when I have time. Groogle 00:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems the article still does not consistently use one or the other. This is sloppy. I am not sure what the Wikipedia policy would say, but for now I will default to the Italian. If anyone wants to disagree/change, please do so consistently. Leberquesgue (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge - Lazanki
The Lazanki article currently doesn't have enough information to merit standing alone, and would be better suited to fleshing out this article. Also they appear to contradict in etymology? so perhaps some one, when merging, can address that. - BalthCat 01:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, sure no! I am Polish, and Lazanki has hardly anything to do with Lasagna! It's a very, very different meal! Will write more about Lazanki when have some time, but guys do not merge it, as it would be just wrong in terms of true and false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.146.216.238 (talk • contribs) .
- Understood :) - BalthCat 05:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lasagna origin dispute
The dispute over the origin of the lasagna recipe could be right, delete the external links to the actuals lasagna recipe over the internet is definitely wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.192.194 (talk • contribs) 14:50, May 14, 2007 (UTC)
- the mention about the origin of lasagna is much more matter of factual and strongly worded than its citation source... i would suggest it be re written or removed.
--Warfreak 00:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- lasagna was invented in 1839 by Italian cook Phil D'antonio--[[User:anon 00:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.5.178 (talk)
[edit] Advertisement
The first external link in this article is basically a piece of product placement - am removing it.--Shtove (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- so is the last link. "song X by band Y contains a lyric containing the word lasagna". You've gotta be kidding me! Hey, my website contains the word too! Am removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridium (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Popular culture section doesn't belong here
The popular culture section clearly doesn't belong in the article. It is trivial, frivolous, and unencyclopedic. I suggest removing it. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I actually spent ages this afternoon merging the "popular culture" (AKA trivia) section into the main article! Now only a few hours later, it has been put back. It's not a revert, and it does not seem to be vandalism either, but I do think it is misguided to have a "popular culture" section.
- I am tempted to revert it back to the way I left it, but I don't want to pretend that the article was definitive at that point. Hoping someone else will back me up and do something to merge the information back again. Leevclarke (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I just read the article in more detail, and I will definitely not revert it to the way I left it before, but I think I will try to merge the trivia again. Let me know what you think! Leevclarke (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I think you made a good rewrite, with a clever tie between origin and cultural references. I moved the Łazanki sentence from the intro to the Variants section, and pluralized one word. —Adavidb 01:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thank you. :-) The article seems to have reached a stable state now, so I will stop monitoring it. Leevclarke (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Sorry to bring this up again, as I can see you've had a discussion about it, but reading this article for the first time and finding the likes of Joey Tribiani and Garfield in the "Origin" section just seems weird. What's the problem with just having a separate cultural references section? Passingtramp (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Seinfeld segment
I love Seinfeld as much as the next geek, but does the mention of "Vegetable Lasagna" in an episode really bear mentioning in this article? In fact, does any of the popular culture stuff add anything to this article? Weird Al seems to be misplaced on a food article as well.