Talk:Open sandwich/Archive 1

Image
Can there not possibly be a more appetizing picture obtained? 128.232.250.254 23:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

At least here in southern Minnesota, an open faced sandwich with roast beef is referred to as a "beef commercial" or just "a commercial."


 * The image is two different breads with liver paste (or liver paté) on. The reason to close sandwiches may be to hide what's not looking appetizing ?
 * Suitable addings here would be either South Swedish Pickles (small sliced cucumber stored in a fluid based on water, mild acetic acid vinegar, sugar and with dill, but without salt . The cucumbers can also be stored unsliced, which takes a few month before they are ready to eat. (In a North Swedish alternative the sugar and vinegar acid is replaced with salt instead. But personally I wouldn't recommend salt pickles) or sliced red beets, in the same fluid just mentioned (though never salt) or a mixture of red beets (which has been in the sweet-acid fluid for some months) and mayonnaise. This mixes the tender and sweet-sour flavours - but liver paste shouldn't be used with white bread. Boeing720 (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Second picture in article
...has no caption. Other than "open sandwiches", what are these odd looking things?  Mi re ma r e  14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Australian steak sandwich
"An Australian steak sandwich is a variation of this type where the steak is served on grilled garlic toast." I am Australian and have never heard of this recipe. To me, a steak sandwich in Australia uses two slices of bread, with the steak contained within. A cursory search on Google returned no information about an Australian open steak sandwich. Sfaiku (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

uitsmeiter => uitsmijter
The Dutch/Flemish (what cuisine and traditional culture is concerned almost synonymous, but we'll keep it for clarity's sake) dish consisting of cold meat (usually ham), cheese (not always) and an egg (indispensable) is spelled "uitsmijter" instead of "uitsmeiter". The distinction between "ei" and "ij", which in fact is strictly orthographical and has no phonemic properties, is sometimes also a problem for native speakers. Koenraad Cl (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

single slice?
Is an open sandwich always a single slice? some of the photos seem to disagree with this. If you have two slices of bread side by side, is that one sandwich or two? Most recipes for Welsh Rarebit, for example, call for two slices per serving. Perhaps the article should say "one or more slices"... but I'm no expert. MattHucke(t) 19:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's a single slice. But you can have as many as you like, or can muster. In Sweden, if you have two, you can combine them into a "dubbelmacka" (double open sandwich) which is eaten as is, and not cut diagonally as you do with sandwiches. The size of a slice can vary. If you cut a loaf in long slizes, they are called "landgång" (gangplank). –– Henriok (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just looking at all of the pictures with two so-called open sandwiches on a plate together gather here, it seems plausible to me that today this kind of sandwich is just an excuse to make a decorative plate for presentation at upscale restaurants. Or to give the eater options. Eat them like a slice of pizza, or marry them together and eat as a proper sandwich. Plus you can easily remove the elements of the sandwich you like before cramming them all together!--184.63.132.236 (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not helpful
This article has been quite unnecessarily butchered. These facts are not controversial, but quite well know undisputed dishes. Please do not mass-remove every sentence that doesn’t have an inline citation, just add a citation if indeed is needed and somebody will find those sources. WP:PRESERVE. This is not a controversial topic, and references can be found. Before removing ANYTHING - make sure that there indeed is no such reference for it YOU can find yourself. Otherwise it is just disruptive editing ->Disruptive editing forcing other people to start working to find references, when the removed things have been just quite alright, and when they could use their time for better things than start hunting references for such totally uncontroversial topics. This is forcing other people who want to build an encyclopaedia to go and work a lot on your behalf, and do the work you could do just as well, yourself. Hafspajen (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong name
From a global perspective, this is the normal sandwich, and hence an UK-sandwich ought to be labeled as "closed sandwich". It is stated that also English Wikipedia should use a global perspective. In Europe closed sandwiches are only served in Britain and Ireland. And not all bread are closed there, I've never seen any closed toasted bread anywhere. Boeing720 (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah I think it's strange that open-face sandwich is the redirect. Should open-face sandwich be the main name and open sandwich redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.35.88 (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What does Boeing720 mean with this being the 'normal' sandwich from a global perspective? One should distinguish between the use of the word sandwich in other Anglophone countries, the use as a loan-word in other languages and popular foods which could be called 'sandwich' in various countries.
 * Sandwich suggests that not only in the UK but also in the United States, a sandwich usually consists of two parts of bread with something in between (a 'closed sandwich').
 * If Boeing720 means that in many countries (especially on the Continent) a single slice of bread is the normal form of bread eating, I suppose s/he is right. At least in the Netherlands, that is true – but these are just called boterham, not sandwich. It should be noted that people usually make a two-slice dubbele boterham when they have to bring their bread from home (the slices protect the topping during travel); some people may eat their boterhammen at home like that as well, and many canteens and takeaways sell the two-slice varieties (both in the British and Dutch forms).
 * On the other hand, in Dutch, the term sandwich as a loan-word is reserved for the British form (two slices, usually with a square or triangle form, as opposed to Dutch bread which is round on one side). It seems that other languages using the loan-word also reserve it for two-slice varieties. So I don't think Boeing720's assumption that the single-slice form is the 'normal sandwich' holds true.
 * However, a merge with butterbrot should be considerd, to shift focus from the term to the content. Bever (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"Start Age"
"During the start age ]], thin slabs of coarse bread called "trenches" (late 15th century English) or, in its French derivative, "trenchers", were used as plates." I do not know what was intended by this, so I dare not correct it. What does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnpythonicProgrammer (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"Oxymoron"
"Some critics of the terminology have noted the term "open-faced sandwich" is an oxymoron. They note that a sandwich by definition, is a filling between two food items, typically bread, and that you have to be able to eat a sandwich without utensils." This section is biased. As a user above has noted, from a global perspective this is the normal sandwich. Besides, I've never heard of anyone eating an open sandwich using utensils. Noxian16 (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your edits. There is ample evidence to show that oxymoron status in the rest of the world is obvious. There are plenty of sources to show this and the one I supplied is adequate. Your removal of the information stating it violates WP:NPOV is in itself a violation of NPOV: A NPOV should be able to show both sides, not just one. TLDR: Oxymoron content is fine - it's not the final word, just another way of looking at things per source supplied. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Like Noxian16 said, it's obvious (actually) that an open sandwich is usually eaten without utensils, contrary to what the author of the reference claims. The book is tongue-in-cheek anyway, thus inadequate as a source. But none of that matters – you and I might not personally be a fan of the term "open sandwich" but compound words that repurpose an existing term in a way that contradicts the original meaning are very common and aren't considered oxymorons, except in the most trite technical sense. It's a fun showerthought, sure, but including this non-information here is pretty much the same as including a section in Military intelligence saying that that term is considered an oxymoron, hurr hurr. Or non-alcoholic beer. I'm not worried about bias, this trivia is just obviously not fit for an encyclopedia. 80.220.149.75 (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So it's obvious it's an oxymoron and that an open-sandwich requires utensils, but we somehow feel the need to eliminate adequately sourced and obvious material that discusses that aspect? As I mentioned before, this is just one source that discusses the oxymoron quality. There are others, but this one succinctly puts it into perspective. It's not trivia, because the article goes into some depth about it, even discussing boneless ribs. The section on the oxymoron can be expanded upon. My suggestion is, relax, everyone knows it's an oxymoron, we're just reminding them. Foodies are a very passionate lot and get bent out of shape easily while defending their personal food preferences. Let's keep that in mind when discussing the encyclopedic qualities of an "open-faced" sandwich. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed the section because medium.com is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. If, as Leimotiv claims, there is "ample evidence" and "plenty of sources" they should be cited in the article before the section is restored. Spudlace (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In what way is medium.com not reliable? That specific article actually sources a book, you realize? Leitmotiv (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have questions about the reliable sources policy I would refer you to WP:RS/N where the community can offer more input on this. Otherwise, please do not continue to edit war over this without reaching a consensus with editors on the talk page. Currently, three editors on the talk page have objected to your edit. Spudlace (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently only two editors have objected to the section I added, but none have provided a reason why it's not within the scope of wikipedia. Your edits were directly against medium.com which I replaced with the book as a source. People can be upset with wikipedia content, but they have to show a good reason to be upset.
 * Addendum: Also please refrain from bad faith arguments. You offered that medium.com was unreliable as a source - therefore you claim to know in some regard about the manner. Don't follow that with claiming you have no idea and refer me to some other place. You brought it up on this very talk page, the onus is on you. I did research it and figured out why, but that doesn't absolve you of a responsibility to back up your claims only to see you check out of the conversation. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your user page says you have been editing "for over 10 years". You should know that UGC is not a reliable source. Spudlace (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry were you responding to something I actually said? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)