Talk:fish 'n' chips

fish 'n' chips
See 'n': (and compare rock 'n' roll:, which does exist but is a redirect). Equinox ◑ 19:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as alternative spelling, you can see it all over the place in the UK. Google Images might be a good place to get some pictorial evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it's quite common, but you can also see bits 'n' bobs:, bits 'n' pieces:, snacks 'n' stuff: (restaurant chain), and all anybody really needs to know is what 'n': means. Equinox ◑ 20:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the same way that readable: is from read: + -able: but we have that. Here's one. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not the same thing, because readable is a single word and a foreigner might not know where to split it. When spaces are present, the individual words can be looked up separately if necessary. Equinox ◑ 20:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which wouldn't help your foreigner, since this is not just any old fish and any old chips. &#x200b;—  msh210  ℠  17:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as an alternative spelling of fish and chips. --EncycloPetey 20:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (as an alternative-spelling entry, I suppose). I don't really understand the argument to be rid of this. Nominator seems to be saying it's not idiomatic because it's SoP: fish +  'n'  + chips. But then fish and chips is equally SoP: why not nominate it? &#x200b;—  msh210  ℠  00:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * fish and chips is not SoP because it's a specific preparation of certain fish and potato chips. A goldfish on a pile of microprocessors is not "fish and chips", even though it might meet the term. However, fish 'n' chips is just an alternative spelling, and that 'n': can be used in any situation to replace and. Equinox ◑ 00:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. It's SOP, where the P are and s///. However, I don't really see the harm in keeping it as an alternative spelling. —Ruakh TALK 02:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a sum of parts; that's a substitution of parts. --EncycloPetey 04:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In fairness, fish and chips is not sum of parts because it can't be just any fish with any chips. Serve me some salmon with McDonald's fries and that's not fish and chips. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, Ruakh, if we had [[Philadelphia cheesesteak]], you'd say Philly cheesesteak was SoP, I gather. And because we have [[color blind]], you think colour blind is SoP. Right? &#x200b;—  msh210  ℠  18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of what we have, but of what it is. 'n': is just an eye-dialect spelling of and: that's often found in advertising. Any idiom that contains and: can be (and likely has been) written with 'n': instead; that doesn't mean we should have entries for every such 'n': spelling. It doesn't seem to me that "fish 'n' chips" is an actual term, or an actual spelling of its own; it's just the term "fish and chips", with the 'n':-substitution that we explain at 'n':. (Maybe I'm wrong; I'm not a UK-ian, and maybe a UK-ian would feel that this is really its own spelling. If so, I'd like to know that.) In the case of "Philadelphia cheesesteak" vs. "Philly cheesesteak", the latter is the usual name, so that approach wouldn't make sense; and in the case of "color blind" vs. "colour blind", I think one should redirect to the other. —Ruakh TALK 19:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept, per discussion above. Mglovesfun (talk)