Talk:Shepherd's pie

[This was added to the GAN page, which means it didn't appear on anyone's watchlists. I've moved it to this page to ensure it can be properly seen on watchlists and responded to. - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)]

Some refinements we could make to the article. In a couple of places, the flow of ideas isn't clear.

• The sentence beginning "According to Jane Grigson" has several problems.

Why do we say "according to JG"? Is there any dispute about this point? Normally, if a statement is uncontested, we don't quote the author; we simply footnote it.

It is non sequitur. The previous sentence said nothing about mincing by hand or by machine.

If it is meant to explain what the early authors meant by "minced"? In that case, a date would be useful, e.g., "since around 1855, mincing has normally meant machine mincing".

It seems to identify left-over meat with mincing machines, but it's clear from many of our sources that leftover meat was common before that, and may have been the original filling of shepherd's pie.

It is in the Cottage pie section, but it really has nothing to do specifically with cottage vs. shepherd's pie.

It may well be true that machine-minced meat is inferior to hand-minced meat, but this is a peculiar place to mention that.

Although this section is titled "History / Cottage pie", it is mostly about the history of the name.

The social history of shepherd's pie as a cheap food for institutional cooking would be fascinating -- surely there are better sources for that than Grigson's outburst.

• The discussion about storing cooked meat doesn't belong under Cottage pie, because the same is true of Shepherd's pie.
• I don't see why we mention parenthetically that "hash" comes from French "hachis".

I would suggest that we separate the discussion of the names (section title "Name") from discussion of variants (like putting potato under the meat as well as over), and discussion of leftover vs. fresh meat. For the moment, I don't have much time to work on this, but I hope to get back to it. --Macrakis (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Whatever the thoughts about the above, this wasn't the best way to deal with content. For a start, short, stubby sections are by-and-large terrible (they smack of sectioning for the sake of sectioning, rather than anything beneficial or logical). The sectioning removed some entirely germane information, and a "criticism" section was left missing the context. It's important to keep the information about what mincing originally meant - that should never have been deleted. Secondly, Grigson's criticism was not about the dish per se, but about the ramification of what that change can lead to. Having a criticism section solely to highlight a potential change in some cases is not the best approach. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss better ways to organize the article. My reorganization was certainly not meant to be definitive; I expected that all of us would continue to improve the organization and to fill out each of those "stubby" sections, which of course were too short, precisely because we don't have enough material on some topics.

As it is, this is an article about a culinary dish which is missing some basic information:

• the very basic topic of preparation, comments on which are scattered through the article.
• its broader social context:

• where is it usually prepared and consumed (home, in pub, in institutions (cf. Grigson));
• how is it perceived (traditional? institutional? retro? stodgy?);
• how have modern cooks and chefs have updated it (cf. Michel Guérard's Hachis Parmentier with veal sweetbreads and duck gizzards!).

• The relative use of left-over vs. raw meat over time. I believe most 19th century recipes call for leftover cooked meat, but that isn't clear in our article.

The table on "similar dishes" could use some more depth and be more analytical.

• How complete is it? I just added the Russian and United States versions, which seem like pretty big lacunae. Are there others?
• Does the Russian dish come from the English or French dish, or does it come from the Russian zapekanka tradition?
• Pióg an aoire is just an Irish translation/calque of Shepherd's Pie, not a "similar dish", and apparently that is a pretty recent renaming (but I'm still looking into that).

These seem to be pretty basic. Covering them seems important to getting to Featured Article.

As I said above, there are also multiple topics that are blended awkwardly in the History section:

• The use of the various names, overlapping with the recently added section on Definitions.
• Variations in the recipe (which don't seem to correlate with variations in the name). These belong in the Preparation and Variations sections.
• Whether mincing is done with knives or mincing machines, and the effect on the quality of the result. This is a reasonable critique but probably belongs in meat grinder. But we've lost the other point Grigson made, that mincing "helped to make the less noble parts edible without prolonged cooking".

On the other hand, Grigson's critique of Shepherd's pie as a staple of low-quality industrial cooking in institutions belongs in the proposed "social context" section. BTW, this connects nicely with the famous/notorious Soviet version Картофельная запеканка, which I just added.

Or maybe it has nothing to do with social context, but more to do with an appeal to tradition (pre-mincing machines). Her comment, which appears after her recipe for Shepherd's pie, is a concession to those who don't like Shepherd's pie (as of 1974). She attributes the poor quality of modern shepherd's pie to the use of mechanical mincing machines (a shorthand for the industrialization of cooking), leading to her apologia for Shepherd's pie, where she reclaims its reputation by restoring the dish to its presumably ideal pre-industrial form: "If you use fresh meat [etc.], shepherd's pie—or cottage pie, as it's sometimes called—can be well worth eating."

Discussion? --Macrakis (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I've removed some of the OR from the recent additions, but adding weakly sourced OR mid-FAC is not a good step. Adding other variants may seem like a positive step, but unless you can find sources that say 'this is a variant of SP/CP, then it's just OR, which means it just shouldn't be in the article (You yourself have questioned whether the Russian dish is a variant or whether it comes from a different bit of Russian cuisine: what does the source say? If it doesn't specifically say it comes from SP/CP, then it's just OR and you should remove it straight away; ditto the US addition). Some of your points above may have some merit, but many don't, and many just are not covered in the sources except by use of further OR (modern 'developments', for example). And if you're going to add more information, please ensure that you do the sources consistently and properly, including information like page numbers and author names. - SchroCat (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reformatting the footnotes. I should have followed the article's established practices.

My understanding was that whenever an article is nominated for a higher-visibility tag, it should encourage editors to review it and improve it so that it truly deserves the tag. If you think instead that the nomination should essentially freeze the article as is, the I'd suggest that we withdraw this article from the FAC process. There are just too many issues (see above).

As for which variants belong in the article, this is an article about a family of dishes consisting of minced meat covered with mashed potatoes. This is not a dictionary entry about the terms "Shepherd's pie" and "cottage pie" (see below for more discussion of this point). It is not OR to add to the article a dish of minced meat covered with mashed potatoes because the particular kind of meat used (bully beef) is not fresh or leftover beef or lamb. After all, we already mention Shepherdess pie, which contains no meat at all.

You say " if [the source] doesn't specifically say it comes from SP/CP, then it's just OR and you should remove it straight away". I strongly disagree. This is not an article about "descendants of Woodforde's cottage pie". Regardless of its history, if the Russian Картофельная запеканка and the American hamburger pie are substantially the same (which they clearly are), it doesn't matter whether it's a borrowing or a case of convergent evolution. As the article evolves, I'd hope that it would attract more editors to fill in the history.

I don't see how it is OR to aspire to cover modern developments such as Food Wars variant.^[1] Is that classic Hachis Parmentier? Certainly not! But it is explicitly a "take on Hachis Parmentier, which is basically the French verson of Shepherd's Pie". Do we need to cover it? Probably not in depth.

As for "Some of your points above may have some merit, but many don't", that is not constructive. As an experienced Wikipedia editor (more than twice as many edits as me), you know that Talk page discussions should not just be statements of opinion or, but proper arguments. I'm happy to discuss any of the points I bring up. --Macrakis (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

1. [1]

   "Anime News, Top Stories & In-Depth Anime Insights". Crunchyroll News. Retrieved 2026-02-16.

Re

The mince may be made from raw meat or previously-cooked left-overs.

vs.

The mince may be made from raw meat or previously cooked.

The first version is clear that left-0vers are minced. The second version could mean that the mince was previously cooked. In many countries (including, I think, the UK), it is not uncommon to buy cooked mince, which was presumably made from fresh meat (do we need to add that possibility?). It could also mean that the recipe calls for first cooking meat, then mincing it. So I think "left-overs" is needed. --Macrakis (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I've put it back to the original version, which I think is the stronger version anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree.

The older version, "The meat used may be either previously cooked or freshly minced." is less clear than the new version which you reverted. "Leftover" is straightforward and unambiguous and reflects what our sources say; "previously cooked" is vague (does it mean that the recipe starts by taking a piece of meat and cooking it?); "minced raw meat" is explicit, "freshly minced" sounds like the precious wording of a restaurant menu which says "fresh lettuce from our garden" rather than simply "lettuce". If I mince yesterday's leftovers and immediately cook with them, does that count as "freshly minced"? --Macrakis (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The current article seems to be focused on the question of nomenclature: what is the difference (if any) between Shepherd's pie and Cottage pie. The Definitions section covers the topic nicely, except that it inexplicably doesn't mention one of the earliest known names, Sanders/Saunders.

But then the History section takes up the topic again. It is divided into subsections "Cottage pie" and "Shepherd's pie" each of which starts out with nomenclature -- which presumably belongs in the Definitions section -- and then peculiarly veers into more general topics which are relevant to both, or even to the other name. For example, the CP section includes Grigson's comments, even though she uses the term Shepherd's pie and clearly says that the terms are equivalent. The comments in that section about variant preparations (potato on the bottom, leftovers or fresh, etc.) are not specific to SP/CP. Then the SP section talks about neither one being mentioned by Mrs. Beeton, which of course is interesting history, but not specific to SP. The "traditional verse" talks of Cottage pie, but is in the SP section.

Why this focus on nomenclature rather than substance? The article needs radical restructuring, as I suggested on February 10. Can we please discuss that and move forward? --Macrakis (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The previous Definitions and Preparation section was a short paragraph added to the Definitions section. It was worded as a concise recipe in the imperative voice (cf. WP:NOTRECIPE) and was very incomplete: It didn't mention what vegetables and other ingredients are commonly added. It didn't mention that the dish is sometimes made with fresh and sometimes with leftover meat. It didn't mention the common inclusion of garlic (included in 88% of recipes since 1993), or carrots (91% of recipes since 2004). It didn't discuss the differences between the raw and the leftover recipes.

I replaced it with a summary of the recipes in our Variations section, so it now discusses variants and avoids the trap of assuming that there is an unchanging standard or canonical recipe (cf. Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Original, authentic, and traditional). Admittedly, our Variations section isn't a random sample, and cookbooks over-represent chef techniques rather than home cooking, but it does include a variety of mostly British, but also US, French, and other authors over 125 years.

User:SchroCat blanket-reverted with the unhelpful and peremptory edit comment "Better before", and then "There’s a talk page where the bizarre mess of an edit can be discussed". I do not appreciate the insulting and unconstructive characterization of my edit as a "bizarre mess".

I look forward to their engagement on this talk page. --Macrakis (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I stand by the description of ‘bizarre mess’. A morass of percentages from a relatively small sample of recipes is something that will only ever lead to problems both at the FAC and for the remainder of the time they sit there until another right-thinking editor rips them out. I’ve seen some awful stuff shoved into articles, and this is up there. Think: what happens when someone adds or removes a recipe from the section? All those figures are automatically out of date and the article looks more ridiculous than the rather woeful use of pointless percentages would have it. The description we had deliberately eschewed the optional ingredients and focused on the preparation of the core dish. There are lots of other things that can be added, but that’s down to personal choice, rather than anything else. It deliberately didn’t go into the question of the type or style of meat used: that’s dealt with elsewhere in some detail and doesn’t need to be repeated in this section. Oh, in future, please don’t edit war when you’ve been reverted: the talk page is here for a reason; the guideline is BRD, not BRRD. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I am so sad to see two valued colleagues at odds here. If I say I am with SchroCat all the way that is not to detract one iota from my respect for and admiration of Macrakis. Tim riley talk 20:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Lots of valid points. But also unnecessarily provocative language. I will answer tomorrow. --Macrakis (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for my unintentional overwriting of Tim Riley's comment, and thanks to SchroCat for fixing it. I hadn't seen Tim's comment when I wrote mine. It must have been some sort of edit conflict, but I didn't get the normal conflict warning. Macrakis (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I am sad, too. I have enjoy collegial editing on Wikipedia where we build on each others' contributions and correct each others' errors. I fully expect that my contributions will be improved upon.

For example, I agree with SchroCat's critique that the percentages in notes are problematic: it depends on the changing and fairly arbitrary list of recipes, which makes them unmaintainable. But the exact percentages are not important: rather, the point was to provide an objective basis for qualitative words like "usually", "often", "occasionally", "since the 1970s", etc. to avoid original research.

In any case, I believe there is a middle ground here. Basing the Preparation section on the 30 sources already cited in the article seems more consistent with WP:NPOV than basing it on two 30-year-old recipes, regardless of how notable their authors are. By using that data, we can "assign[s] weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources" rather than have to make editorial calls on what is "core" vs. "optional".

There is no Platonic shepherd's pie, so Preparation should take the neutral point of view and reflect the real diversity. --Macrakis (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm glad to say SchroCat is lunching chez Riley on Shepherd Parmentier's Cottage pie with me next week. I would truly love to include you in the party were you this side of the Atlantic. Tim riley talk 18:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

That would be wonderful. As it happens, I will be on that side of the Atlantic next week.

But on the wrong side of the Channel, and about 1000 miles southwest of you. --Macrakis (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I hope with all my heart that your trip is top-notch. Tim riley talk 19:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)