Talk:Lobscouse

Requested move 28 June 2022

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: moved. Proposed spelling found to be the most common name backed up by Ngram usage data. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Lapskaus → Lobscouse – Clearer name for the English language wiki, this is per WP:CRITERIA, the relevant criterion is WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, which is supported by WP:COMMONNAME--evrik ^(talk) 19:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment In English the common name is Lobscouse. --evrik ^(talk) 17:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Lapskaus is also a commonly used spelling variant in English, COMMONNAME remains Lapskaus.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support – Ngram seems to support "Lobscouse" as the more common spelling in English. Favonian (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wish to challenge this: Up to a month ago this article was about a Norwegian dish (a meat and potato stew) the correct name for which was lapskaus (nor). As it is Norwegian, there is no English common name; certainly not 'lobscouse', which is a sailors dish (a kind of savoury porridge made with ships biscuit). And as they are two different items, there is no reason why an N-gram comparing the use of the two words would prove anything (any more than an N-gram comparing 'boot' and 'boat' would prove the latter was the correct title for an article on the former).
As for recognizability (and naturalness) what other title for a Norwegian dish would be more recognizable than the Norwegian name?
If the subject here (a Norwegian stew) was unclear, I suggest the article content was distorted by the un-discussed merger (see below) which lumped content on a German dish with a similar name (but a different recipe/format) into this one.
If an article on Lobscouse is needed (the term (IIRC) previously redirected to Scouse (food), where it is explained at length) then writing one from source would be better than hijacking an existing article about something else and renaming it. Swanny18 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge, unmerge

The Labskaus article was merged here without discussion (or even much of an explanation) recently; this was ill-founded, so I have unmerged them.
If anyone feels these pages should be merged I suggest they open a merge discussion (per WP:MERGE) and present some good reason, though I suggest as these pages are on two different subjects (this one is on a Norwegian stew made from meat and potatoes, while the other is a north German dish involving corned beef and pickles), I contend they are "discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short". Swanny18 (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Labskaus, Lobscouse, Scouse (food)

Labskaus

Scouse or Lobscouse (full disclosure: I created this image)

While these are related foods, Labskaus vs Lobscouse/Scouse appear to be different foods. The fact they have similar ingredients and similar names doesn't mean they're the same food.

It's possible Lobscouse and Scouse should be merged, but here's the difference between Labskaus and Scouse/Lobscouse. And this is not a cherrypicked image, see Labskaus at Commons. We don't have nearly the same number of images of lobscouse/scouse, but here's the google image search Same ingredients, very different food. Valereee (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Valereee, hello!!!! :) My view: I could see a case for Scouse as the main article with Lobscouse being a paragraph within it. As for Labskaus, yes, a pretty different thing I think, and a 'see also' would be fine. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak, thank you! I have been ruminating on this for (obviously) over a year. Are you interested in revising this? Valereee (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure! Considering this post of yours has been here for ages and nobody seems to give a hoot, I could just, per WP:BOLDMERGE, copy the content of this article to the main article Scouse (food), with attribution, and leave a redirect behind. If anybody goes bananas, we undo it and watch others get into a dull and lengthy discussion over 'stew'. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually, which should be merged into which? Lobscouse is the older, original dish it seems, but the Scouse article calls it a variant. I'm confused and losing interest. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Valereee. If you want to pick one, I'd do the merge and cleanup:

• Lobscouse becomes part of Scouse (food)
• Scouse (food) becomes part of Lobscouse

Or just leave it, considering what I wrote above: "...Lobscouse is the older, original dish it seems, but the Scouse article calls it a variant..." Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak, I think maybe the thing to do is just pick one, even at random, just to get it done? Maybe I'd probably go with Loubscouse as the main article if it's the original dish? Re: I'm confused and losing interest, yes, that's what has kept me from trying to figure this out. It's confusing, and eventually I just shoved it onto the back burner. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

HI Valereee. Deal! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC) I'll do it as soon as I have time. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Done! There are lots of double redirects left behind. Wikipedia:Double redirects says a bot ought to come by and fix those within a few days. I'll set it sit for now to see what people do with the next content. There is a bit of repetitive text now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Yay, thank you so much for picking this up after I dropped it in the weeds. I haven't looked at it again yet, so I'll try with fresh eyes to see if I can help with repetitive text. Valereee (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, took a run through, but it could probably use another copyedit at some point. Maybe we'll wait to see if there are cries of outrage emanating from Liverpool first. :) Valereee (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Dandy. And I posted at Lobby (food) talk suggesting that also might be best as a section here. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I just took everything useful from Lobby (food) and included it here. After trimming redundancies it is a few sentences. I think we could just redirect that article. Valereee (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm starting to actually feel pretty good about this article at this point. Valereee (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Well done, Valereee. Thank you so much. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

You did all the heavy lifting. I just came in on your coattails. :D Valereee (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Labskaus redux

So, Anna Frodesiak, back to labskaus. Despite the evidence of our eyes, sources agree it is the same dish. The wikidata item is here. I am back to confused. Valereee (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe merge Labskaus into Lobscouse as a notable national variation of a dish most commonly referred to in English as Lobscouse? Ai yi yi. My head hurts. Valereee (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

That may be a bit too far, dear Valereee. Do it if you dare. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking the same. But I'm feeling liberated by the merges you made. So I can totally blame it all on you. Valereee (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Unmerge

(@ Valereee, Anna Frodesiak
I notice the Scouse (food) page was boldly moved here a while ago; I have equally boldly un-merged them, as they are not the same thing.
This page has been a mess since the request move in 2022 moved the Lapskaus page here, followed by a lot of people spending a lot of time re-writing it to make it match the title. Which it doesn’t, and won’t.
To be clear (again) Lobscouse is a mariner’s dish from the age of sail, comprising salt meat and powdered ships biscuit (making a kind of savoury porridge); it has given its name (via sailors around Northern Europe) to a variety of dishes, of which the only thing they have in common is the derivation from the name. The Norwegian Lapskaus (a meat and potato stew) is not the same as the German Labskaus (a kind of corned beef hash), or the Newfoundland Lobscouse (a cabbage soup) </ref> or the Danish skipperlabskovs, (da) or the Finnish Lapskoussi (fi) (which seems to be a kind of bubble and squeak. (S18, added 1st July)) or the Swedish Lapkojs (sv), or the British Scouse/Lobby/Lobscws (all different varieties of meat and potato stew).
If I can suggest a remedy, here, it would be to unmerge and restore the Lapskaus page, and re-write/draft a new article here on the actual lobscouse, including the way the word has been adapted over the years. For that reason I haven't undone the additions to this page yet, as some of them (mainly the Etymology stuff) are relevant to this subject. Swanny18 (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
PS: I've tagged the Lead sentence as Dubious, for the reasons given (above): I also note that the source for the statement goes back to the original Lapskaus page, so it doesn't apply here at all..Swanny18 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Some refs

A few thoughts:

• It was not boldly moved. It was moved after a discussion.
• You did not take part in the 2026 discussion.
• As you have boldly moved without discussion, your move may be subject to WP:BRD.
• Three out of four of the sources you provide do not appear to be reliable.
• The fourth source just mentions it once, and does not make any case that Scouse (food) is a descrete subject.
• So, which is the "discrete subject"? Lobscouse? And is Scouse (food) a variation? Looks like it to me. So, why does Scouse (food) need its own article? It looks pretty much like the same thing.

Am I making sense here? I may not be. I'm getting confused. Valereee, help! My brain hurts. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

My brain's been hurting on this one for a couple years now lol. Valereee (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Swanny18, I'd suggest reverting yourself and let's discuss; the edits were not BOLD but as AF says, the results of lengthy discussion. I'd say we need to start the discussion as a fresh one and not assume anyone knows everything that's been said over the past several years. I am completely open to the idea that this is a really difficult food article. Valereee (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Self-revert. Make a new case. Get consensus. Why? Maybe BOLD's Be careful section: "... On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes...".

And again, we were not bold. We discussed, waited for others to weigh in, and then after a year and 3 months, made the move. That was pretty careful.

This now seems to be an excessive amount of discussion over something pretty small.

Just in case I've lost my marbles, is this what all this is about, right?:

Two options:

1. Scouse should be a standalone.

2. Scouse should be a section within Lobscouse.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. You should self-revert. The solution is not to have multiple articles that would confuse the reader who can land on any one of them randomly depending on their chosen spelling. I will propose a possible solution below. --Викидим (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, one and all, for replying.

So we can always discuss which of our edits were bold, but I’d prefer to discuss the issues with this page and how to fix them. As for self-reverting, I haven’t edited this article, so there’s nothing here to revert; I imagine whether my re-instating the Scouse page survives or not will be part of the outcome here.

To answer the few thoughts, though, I didn’t take part in the merge discussion because I was unaware of it; Had I known my comments would have been substantially what I said above, and that the article here (and thus the merge discussion) is under a number of misapprehensions. (For a start, the lead sentence is wrong: Lobscouse, often shortened in some regions to scouse or lobby, is a stew made of meat, potatoes and vegetables common to multiple Northern European maritime countries under similar names. (ref name="Sandvold") originally read Lapskaus is a thick Norwegian stew made of meat and potatoes. (ref name="Sandvold"). see link, above) And the sources I put in, above, weren’t meant to be reliable, they are there to illustrate what it is we are talking about (one picture…, etc)

I would note the first proposal (above), to make the Scouse page the main article, and the lobscouse stuff a section there, was substantially the situation a few years ago, where Lobscouse was just a redirect to the Origins of the term over there. And any search of the term (like the one above) is going to be skewed by the content in this article (the first image being a case in point).

As for the discrete subjects, they both are, because they are not the same thing. This is (or was) lobscouse; and this is scouse. Scouse has been around since the 18th or 19th century; lobscouse probably since just after the invention of the ship’s biscuit. Scouse is still made and enjoyed in Merseyside; lobscouse has, thankfully, vanished into the swill-bin of history. And the other dishes are as the pictures provided; they aren’t “the same thing with different spellings”. There are a whole pile of sources and references at the Scouse page, as there are for the (German) Labskaus and were for the (Norwegian) Lapskaus.

So the two options noted are not what this is all about; Scouse should be a stand-alone article, yes, and the Lapskaus page needs restoring, but this page needs to be substantially re-written to describe the actual dish the word refers to, and (for clarity) how the word has been adapted for a bunch of other dishes around. Or just go back to being a re-direct. And the reason for multiple articles, apart from them being about different things, is they are culturally important to the people who cook and eat them. Which is why we wouldn’t merge all these into a single article on hot pot. Swanny18 (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not immersed into the topic as deeply as other participants, so while I would state my position here, feel free to correct me when I show my ignorance:

1. It seems that there is a terminology confusion not just in our articles, but in the sources.

   For example, see on etymology:Most English dictionaries ... define Lobscouse as a sailor's stew or hash, don't seem to have any clear idea as to the word's derivation. "Of obscure origin," they say, or "origin unknown"-and then proceed to offer ... connections to loblolly and Liverpool. We prefer to believe... that Lobscouse began as a Nordic dish, as in the Norwegian lapskaus ("hodge-podge"), the Danish labskovs, or the Dutch/German labskaus. (Actually, the Norwegian dictionary says lapskaus comes from the English "lobscouse," while the Danish dictionary says labskovs comes from the Low German labskaus, which the German dictionary says comes from the English "lobscouse.)" While the actual dictionaries are not named, the confusion is evident.

2. As a result, a reader can arrive in the article based in their preferred spelling and be very surprised to see some dish they did not expect. So, either all articles of the "scouse cycle" (I have no position on merging them into one, except as will be indicated in the next item) will have to have a section explaining the different dishes, or this discussion can be centralized in, say, an "WP:outline" (see the next section).
3. The previous version was discussed in detail and for a long time, and therefore was consensual (this was not a WP:BOLDMERGE). Therefore, while discussing the new ararngements, it makes sense to self-revert to this merged version in order to lower the temperature and show respect for the work of our colleagues. This article's subject is not terribly controversial, so a new consensus should be not too hard to find. Still, I would expect months of (hopefully not very long) discussions - but WP:there is no deadline.

Викидим (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Swanny18, re: I haven’t edited this article, so there’s nothing here to revert, you undo the reversion of the merge, and let's talk. I'm sorry you weren't aware of the merge discussion, but you've edited both pages many times going back decades, so we could expect you were paying attention. Please revert. Valereee (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely. Please return Scouse (food) to a redirect. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Easy as 123:

1. There was consensus for Scouse (food) to be a redirect.

2. Swanny18 should revert his edit, returning Scouse (food) to a redirect.

3. Swanny18 persuades others Scouse (food) should be a standalone while I become spectator.

Too much for something too small. ("over budget" per end of THX 1138)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I asked whether you wanted to argue over who was bold or discuss remedies for the article, and you seem to have gone for the former, so:

First, your edit summary for the merge at Scouse (food) read Boldly moving contents of this article to Lobscouse per WP:BOLDMERGE., which says "While bold merges may be reverted entirely, the process and the discussion after the revert often result in better articles". So I’ve boldly reverted and started a discussion, per WP:BRD.

Second, your comment in your discussion above says I could just, per WP:BOLDMERGE, copy the content of this article to the main article Scouse (food), with attribution, and leave a redirect behind. If anybody goes bananas, we undo it and watch others get into a dull and lengthy discussion over 'stew'; So you may take it that I’m the one who went bananas, that it has been undone for you, and this is the dull and lengthy discussion which you can join or sit out and watch as you please.

Third, you’ve said We discussed, waited for others to weigh in, and then after a year and 3 months, made the move and that there was consensus. Actually the idea of a merge was floated in January 2025 and there was no response until April 2026 (unsurprising as less than a dozen people including yourselves edited the page, and there was no notice of a merge proposal posted), Then after a 10 day discussion between the two of you the pages were merged. You didn’t notify any of the other contributors to either page, or post notice of a merge at the Scouse page (apart from a cryptic reply to an unrelated comment), and at the Lobby (food) page you posted a notice of intent just after midnight on 18 April, seconded the motion just before 7pm and carried out the merge 13 minutes later. That’s hardly a consensus in any meaningful sense of the word, and hardly a "discussion in detail" or "being careful". So I have followed WP:BRD, the starting point for which is the status quo ante, though (as I have said, I haven’t unmerged this page yet, partly out of respect for the work of colleagues).

I also note that you aren’t prepared to discuss the article until I un-unmerge the Scouse article, after which you aren’t prepared to discuss the matter because it’s "too much for something too small". That's hardly an incentive, is it? And I find your insistence on my undoing the unmerge I did at Scouse (food), if one of the outcomes of a meaningful discussion could result in it being unmerged yet again just a bit pointy, don’t you think?

So I suggest you can either accept the status quo and discuss the issue constructively, or post an official Merge discussion (after returning this article to the status quo ante) and provide some rationale for taking a fairly well-written, well-referenced 17Kb article at its common name title on a notable subject and merging it with what was a 5Kb hodge-podge (pun intended) of synthesis and flat-out untruths. (To clarify that, I've added a review, below) Swanny18 (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

PS: I’m going to be out of town for a couple of weeks so whatever you decide I’d appreciate it if you hang fire until I get back: Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikidemus, You posted a quote from the Grossman book; do you have access to a copy? It seems to be the only reliable source that actually says something about the original lobscouse, but the nearest copy to me is a couple of hundred miles away (and in another country)...Swanny18 (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is the small excerpt from the entry that should cover your needs: Викидим (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@ Valereee, Anna Frodesiak: Thank you for waiting until I got back; did you want to respond to this, or can we move on? Swanny18 (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what you mean by both "this" and "move on". :D I suggest we start a new section and try to be brief but concise in explaining what you want to do. You've posted an awful lot in this section and the Review section, and it's hard for me to follow. Maybe we take one thing at a time, each in its own section? Valereee (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wikidemus: Thank you for the link; unfortunately the computer I’m on won’t let it open. What is it, exactly? Swanny18 (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This was a free "share short text" site, currently down. Let's wait for it to come back. Викидим (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

PS: I’ve taken the liberty of tweaking the layout to make this easier to follow: I trust everyone is OK with that. Swanny18 (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@ Valereee: By "this" I mean my recent comments (above) in the ongoing argument over whether this is a bold, revert, discuss situation or not; and by "move on" I mean discussing what is wrong with this page as it stands, and to come to some agreement on what to do about it. And yes, I agree it is a bit confusing (which is why I re-factored it to keep the unmerge discussion together), but if you want to pursue the latter option (ie. moving on) a new section would be a good idea. Swanny18 (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wikidemus: I’m happy to wait, though I’m not optimistic about seeing anything: Can you give us a clue what it is, or what it says? Swanny18 (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It was exactly what you have requested: the text from the book. Here is the second try (note that I rewrote the original content). Here is another link: . Викидим (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wikidemus: Thank you for posting this again (and for taking the trouble to type it out). I had presumed it was a full chapter on the subject, with some reference to its use in the books, and maybe a recipe or two. Still, it's useful: I've checked the dictionaries (as indicated); they mostly say lobscouse is "a sailor's dish of stewed or baked meat with vegetables and hardtack" (Collins, Merriam-Webster), "a stew of meat and vegetables thickened with ships biscuits, traditionally eaten by sailors [early 18th C, origin uncertain]" (Encarta), and "A sailors dish of meat stewed with vegetables and ships biscuit or the like [nautical, dialect, 1706]" (OED). Also, if it was being served on ships of the Norwegian America Line it'd be Norwegian Lapskaus (which, I would argue, is not the same thing) they'd be serving. Anyway, thanks, Swanny18 (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Suggested tools

IMHO we have a case of a term that can mean very different thing depending on variation of a spelling in different cultures, so we are essentially facing a WP:disambiguation (DAB) issue. The regular DAB would not work here, as its format does not allow to document diferences and relationships between, say, scouse and lobscouse. Fortunately, Wikipedia has rarely-used article formats that I would call here "DAB on steroids": WP:outline and WP:broad concept. Both formats allow to group different things that have similar names and are somewhat related. I have used the outline format for Outline of kadayif, where the same word can mean very different things depending on the context / culture / spelling. So far, it withstood a limited test of time. I therefore suggest to consider creating a similar outline article about the scouses. That will cover similarities and differences between the dishes. Once this is in place and agreed upon, we can discuss which of the individual dishes deserve their own article, and which should be only present in the outline as "X is like Y, but with pork instead of beef". Викидим (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Review

I’ve decided to review the pre-merge version of this page. It’s worse than I remember; mostly synthesis and flat-out untruths.

Lead sentence

Article	Comment
(Text): Lobscouse is a stew made of meat, potatoes and vegetables common to multiple Northern European maritime countries. "Lapskaus" in Norwegian. (Refs) ..x..	(Text): As mentioned above, this originally read Lapskaus is a thick Norwegian stew made of meat and potatoes. (ref name="Sandvold") So, not the same thing, and not supported by the source given. (Refs) ..x..

Introduction

Article	Comment
(Text): It is particularly well known in a nautical context in the age of sail, when a long voyage might require the sailors to eat and drink whatever limited rations were available. Numerous maritime memoirs and naval logbooks refer to the dish, as well as fiction such as Patrick O'Brian's nautical historical novels Aubrey and Maturin. (Refs) ..x..	(Text): One unsupported claim, and Three sources for the Aubrey Maturin comment, of which: 2. Stivers (The Paris Review) mentions Grossman’s book, not the dish 3. Grossman’s book, which seems to be reliable 4. A Washington post article, behind a paywall (so who knows what that says!) (Refs) ..x..

Etymology

Article	Comment
(Text): Lobscouse is called "Scouse" in north-western England, especially Liverpool, hence the name of their accent, and the nickname "Scouser" for Liverpudlians. Lobscouse is likely to be linked (historically and etymologically) to the Welsh word lobsgows, a variety of the Welsh dish cawl, which is inherently connected to scouse, a European sailors' stew or hash strongly associated with major ports such as Liverpool and Hamburg. It may also be linked to a Swedish dish of a similar name (lapskojs). (Refs) ..x..	(Text): 5 Rohrer just says "The word itself is derived from lobscouse, a corruption of a Scandinavian term brought by the sailors during Liverpool's mightiest maritime years". 6 Seal’s article is about Cawl (another contentious subject) and has "the latter (North Wales) version tends to go by the name of lobscouse, or lobscows, making it unclear whether it is in fact a version of cawl, or simply North Wales’ answer to scouse, the very similar stew synonymous with nearby Liverpool". No mention of Hamburg 7 Smith’s article from BBC Sport (from 2024, so could be tainted by content from here) has "The English term "scouse" comes from the Swedish word lobscouse, a type of stew", which is plain wrong. 8 is the Swedish Historical Dictionary entry for Lapskojs, which describes it as a meat and potatoes dish, and doesn’t mention lobscouse at all (Refs) ..x..

Ingredients and variations

Article	Comment
(Text): There are many variations of the dish. The dish may be made of fresh or leftover meat (usually beef or lamb, but sometimes also chicken, pork, or ham) and potatoes. Other typical ingredients are vegetables (such as carrots, onions, leeks, celery root, and rutabaga), spices (such as pepper or ginger), salt, and herbs. (Refs) ..x..	(Text): This is ambiguous; Is this Norwegian Lapskaus (Sandvold again) or the ingredients for Aubrey/Maturin’s lobscouse (Grossman)? (Refs) ..x..

Other

Article	Comment
(Text): Similar dishes == Lobby Dishes with similar names == Lapskaus See also== List of meat and potato dishes Scouse, a Liverpudlian accent References == reflist Further reading== Lurie, April (2009). Dancing in the Streets of Brooklyn. Dell Yearling. ISBN 978-0385729420. Scott, Astrid Karlsen (2011). Authentic Norwegian Cooking. Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-0963433978. Sinclair, Charles Gordon (1998). International Dictionary of Food and Cooking. Routledge. ISBN 978-1579580575. (Refs) ..x.. ..x..	(Text): Similar dishes== Links to Lobby (food) Dishes with similar names== A link to the (Norwegian) Lapskaus, actually goes to our page on the (German) Labskaus See also== Lobscouse isn’t a meat and potato dish, but is related to Scouse the Liverpudlian accent References== (such as they are) Further reading== These are three books left over from the defunct Lapskaus page, with no bearing now on this page (all the detail that was here from then has been deleted) (Refs) ..x..

Swanny18 (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, guidelines are like the Bible: one thing contradicts another. Please see it from the perspective of what readers of this encyclopedia would prefer, rather than interpreting guidelines and winning a case in court on technical grounds with walls of text. This seems like wikilawyering to me.

All of this over standalone vs. section?? Please persuade others, not me, which they think serves readers best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)