Talk:Crisp sandwich/Archive 1

Waffle cubes?
The phrase "a thin layer of overlapping waffle cubes" has me confused. I can't find anything that explains what that would be. 173.69.163.102 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(Comment)
Do not delete this page, it deserves to be here as much as the pages for other sandwich variants.

I will be updating and adding more content/pictures to this page over the coming weeks.

Crisp sandwiches are a UK phenomenon and deserve recognition as a local food.

Regards

Banner001


 * Known in New Zealand too (locally called "explodaphone sandwiches" for no discernable reason). Salt & Vinegar crisps with the hottest, spiciest salami you can find, preferably in a bun rather than between slices of bread, make for veeeery tasty sandwiches (have them with cider on a hot day!) Grutness...wha?  01:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I support keeping the article, as well as mentioning the term "crisp butties," and Johnny Vegas defending them on QI, at 3:56: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH-nU9W9neo&feature=related O0drogue0o (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

LinguistAtLarge, please stop putting in irrelevant links into this page, there is nothing on "http://www.seattleweekly.com/1999-03-31/news/microsoft-s-new-brain-project" (your first "reference") about crisp sandwiches, the word "crisp" does not even appear on the article. Its an article about Microsoft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banner001 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That reference refers to the sandwich by an alternate name-- "potato-chip sandwich". "Lunch is always ordered in: a peanut-butter-and-potato-chip sandwich, two cans of Mr. Pibb, and a Rocket Pop".  I have added a quote to the reference in the article so there can be no mistaking in the future. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Banner001 has been vandalizing this artilce
For some reason, User:Banner001 has been vandalizing this article, even though xhe originally started it. Twice I have re-instated reliable sources that xhe has removed without giving a valid reason to do so. The first time, they removed 12 reliable sources with the edit summary "Housekeeping, removing bad references". The second time, they again removed the reliable sources with this gem of an edit summary "Citations removed until after discussion", and replaced them with a "source" pointing to a blog/forum. Is there anything that should be done about this? &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity
"While some people consider crisp sandwiches to be a low-end food,[7] there are celebrities who admit to eating them"

The above sentence makes it seem that, because some celebrities eat the sammichs, they are somehow not "low-end". Celebrity endorsement means absolutely nothing. Will someone please re-word this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.97.108 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

LinguistAtLarge:in the same way that blogs/discussion boards cannot be cited as references, neither can the mention of something in a fiction novel be classed as a reliable reference, your first 4 "references" contain, 1. the daily lunch of a microsoft employee, 2. a fiction book by Barbara Delinsky, 3. a fiction book by Harley Kelly Flego and finally "reference" 4. a book by Tim Allen. You cannot just troll the internet looking for every reference to a particular jumble of words and then cite them as reliable references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banner001 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Banner001, let me address each reference inidvidually:


 * 1. "...a peanut-butter-and-potato-chip sandwich..." - This is only cited as a reliable source establishing that peanut butter is one ingredient used along with chips to make a chip sandwich.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I honestly don't see any problems with that.
 * 2. "Turning, she went into the house and fixed a peanut-butter-and- potato-chip sandwich" - Yes, this is a novel, but again, it is only used to establish that peanut butter can be used as an ingredient.  I don't see how this is a problem.
 * 3. "...sat alone in her office eating a tunafish and potato chip sandwich..." - Again, this is used to establish the additional ingredient "tuna".  Additionally, the use of this term in fiction does contribute to the fact that this is a notable type of sandwich.
 * 4. "I'm about to take a bite of my turkey bologna and potato chip sandwich..." - Again, this establishes an additional ingredient used with potato chip sandwiches, what is the problem with that?


 * Also, you failed to mention that in addition to these four references that you removed, you also removed the following 3 references:
 * 5. a cook book with a recipe for a potato chip sandwich,
 * 6. a recipe website describing this sandwich as "white trash cooking" (note: the reliability of this website is iffy, so I'm not totally opposed to removing this reference),
 * 7. and another book that mentions a "salad-creme and crisp sandwich", which establishes salad creme as another ingredient.


 * I'm having a hard time understanding your edits. At the very least, removing the cookbook reference is plainly wrong.  While I assume you are only editing this article for the better good, I don't think you will accomplish that if you remove valid references that support and verify the contents of the article.


 * Now, let's try to decide and come to agreement on which of these references should be in the article, and which ones shouldn't. Let me know if you agree/disagree on these points:


 * 1. Keep - This is a news article mentioning "peanut butter and potato chip sandwich"
 * 2. Neutral - Novel mentioning "peanut butter and potato chip sandwich"
 * 3. Neutral - Novel mentioning "tunafish and potato chip sandwich"
 * 4. Keep - Humour/Comical book mentioning "turkey bologna and potato chip sandwich"
 * 5. Strong keep - Cookbook with a recipe for a potato chip sandwich
 * 6. Remove - Website describing this sandwich as "white trash cooking". This is probably not a reliable source. Also remove the term "white trash cuisine" from the article.
 * 7. Neutral - Book mentioning "salad-creme and crisp sandwich"


 * References 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 are only used as references to show possible additional ingredients that can be used in a crisp sandwich. And as such, I don't think they need to be sources talking about crisp sandwiches, rather they are only mentioning crisp sandwiches.  My inclination is to say that is ok, but what are your feelings on this?


 * In conclusion, let's discuss this and reach agreement/consensus on what to do. Thanks for taking the time to read this.


 * &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How about modifying the statements taht are being referenced to something like "A crisp sandwich is mentioned in the novel Breafast at Tiffany's by Ursual LeGuin". Blogs are not considered reliable, but in some cases saying something has been discussed on blogs might possibly be permissible? May not. Maybe even that assertion has to be stated in a reliable source. But I think some leeway to make the encyclopedia better is wise. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)