Talk:Fish ball/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Fish ball. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
HK bias in article
Anyone familiar with Southern Chinese cuisine will quickly notice the obvious bias in this article which appears to credit this highly common dish to the city of Hong Kong alone. I would call for more information on the food served in China as well as in Taiwan and Southeast Asian countries.--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 11:17 (UTC)
- Please help add a section on how fish ball is served in Singapore, and possibly other parts of Southeast Asia. :-) — Instantnood July 6, 2005 11:34 (UTC)
- What you just did is going to create lots of dedundancy. The so-called two types of fishballs detailed in the article are also found right here in Singapore or in Taiwan, so what would you do about it? If you have nothing to add, then I am going to bold soon. :D--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)
- Are you sure they are just the same thing in Taiwan and Singapore, as in Hong Kong? Do you have any evidence, like pictures? (I wish I could taste it too :-) ) I could tell the differences between those I had in Taipei and what I had in Hong Kong, though they are a bit alike. There're also some differences between the curry fish balls in Hong Kong and Macao. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 13:47 (UTC)
- Abit alike? Haha...so how different are they? I would like some elaboration on that. Dosent this issue always appear to come about when anyone tries to claim territorial owneership over common food, eh? :D--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)
- Double standard, huh? When it comes to a Singaporean dish somebody would say, nah.. the dish in Singapore is not the same as those in Malaysia.. When it comes to a Hong Kong one the same person would accuse others claiming "territorial owneership". Interesting. :-) I'd better take this as a sign of not willing to further on this discussion. Thanks so much for spending the time with me on the conversations above. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 14:24 (UTC)
- lol! You are apparantly getting smarter, but sadly, still a few steps behind all the time. I specifically am using this discussion to force out this line from you. So you know what double standards is. So you know just how biased you are. Well, congratulations, but I am still expecting the above qns to be answered, because I dont think your claim of total HK owneership of fish balls is going to be comparable to how you try denying Singapore's claims to various dishes. You have a grossly uphill task ahead of you, and I wish you all the best. :D--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)
- Neither have I ever claimed Hong Kong "owneership" over fish balls, nor denied Singaporeans' claim to various dishes (though you'd always think I did). Please, kindly, stop making such accusations without concrete evidence. Whether I'm "getting smarter but still a few steps behind all the time" or not is plain personal. There's nothing to do with the discussion here on this talk page for fish balls. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 14:49 (UTC)
- lol! You are apparantly getting smarter, but sadly, still a few steps behind all the time. I specifically am using this discussion to force out this line from you. So you know what double standards is. So you know just how biased you are. Well, congratulations, but I am still expecting the above qns to be answered, because I dont think your claim of total HK owneership of fish balls is going to be comparable to how you try denying Singapore's claims to various dishes. You have a grossly uphill task ahead of you, and I wish you all the best. :D--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)
- Double standard, huh? When it comes to a Singaporean dish somebody would say, nah.. the dish in Singapore is not the same as those in Malaysia.. When it comes to a Hong Kong one the same person would accuse others claiming "territorial owneership". Interesting. :-) I'd better take this as a sign of not willing to further on this discussion. Thanks so much for spending the time with me on the conversations above. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 14:24 (UTC)
- Abit alike? Haha...so how different are they? I would like some elaboration on that. Dosent this issue always appear to come about when anyone tries to claim territorial owneership over common food, eh? :D--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)
- Are you sure they are just the same thing in Taiwan and Singapore, as in Hong Kong? Do you have any evidence, like pictures? (I wish I could taste it too :-) ) I could tell the differences between those I had in Taipei and what I had in Hong Kong, though they are a bit alike. There're also some differences between the curry fish balls in Hong Kong and Macao. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 13:47 (UTC)
- What you just did is going to create lots of dedundancy. The so-called two types of fishballs detailed in the article are also found right here in Singapore or in Taiwan, so what would you do about it? If you have nothing to add, then I am going to bold soon. :D--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)
From the original author
I am sorry and surprised that my little contribution has caused such a fierce debate. I don't know it's such a controversial topic. I saw in the "Hong Kong Wiki Noticeboard" that a Fish Ball article is wanted; so I made one. I think why the article is wanted in the HK Wiki Noticeboard is because fishball is such a common food in Hong Kong; so I wrote the article only with a HK-perspective; of course there is fish ball in other parts of the world; it's my fault that I wrote with such a narrow view; and I apologize for that:-). - K.C. Tang 15:40, July 7, 2005 (UTC)
- No you need not apologise to this extend with regards to the "fierce debate" which erupted. It became so heated because unlike yourself, who do not hesitate in admitting that fish balls are just as common in many places outside HK and its obvious lopsided bias which needs correction, I had great issues with the above user who takes it upon himself to simply revert all edits I made which he consider as "anti-HK", refusing to accept my efforts in expanding the article beyond the HK-realm (in a knee-jerk reaction so fast it appears it was done before he engages his grey matter), and when it becomes plain obvious after several rounds of counter reverts that fish balls are quite obviously common beyond HK, he then swings into "territorial" mode in a typical face-saving endeavour in his desperate attempt to preserve the HK bias in the article. How he came to associate all my actions as detrimental to HK that is beyond me...I dont quite understand the behavior of insecure, anal retentive individuals I suppose. As far as I am concerned, if I know something is biased towards any one city/place/territory, including my own, I wont hesitate to edit it to create better balance if need be. Can anyone tell me if this is against the good of wikipedia? So once again, K.C. Tang, I dont pin any blame on you at all with regards to the above affair. If basic common sense and goodwill may reign, I suppose everyone would be doing more productive things everytime they volunteer to contribute something to wikipedia?--Huaiwei 7 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)
- I don't think I have ever expressed any opinion that fish ball is a solely Hong Kong food. I reverted for the first time because somebody made it a Cantonese cuisine, which is obviously not true. I went ahead to rewrite the leading paragraph after the revert, but that somebody was faster than I do. I'd say his conclusion that I considered his behaviour anti-Hong Kong was plainly based on intuition and his past experience. — Instantnood July 7, 2005 18:23 (UTC)
- "Intuition" and "past experience" indeed. lol. So if my "intuition" tells me that I am talking to a toad, and from "past experiences" of toad-like noises being made from this same creature who goes by the pen name "Instantnood", it has got to be true. Anyway, as I have already said. If you know full well that the wrong category has been assigned, then may I know why you would prefer a revert instead of editing the page to make that small change?--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)
- I undid your incorrect edit before carrying on to edit the article. (And please mind your language.) — Instantnood July 8, 2005 19:25 (UTC)
- Would you mind learning how to 1. use the talk page, 2. edit the page, 3. use the revert tool with full compliance to the revert rules, which btw includes the rule Always explain your reverts, which is a Wikipedia policy. Using the revert tool because you think you are not going to get your way via a proper discussion is not a valid excuse at all to your current behavior.--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
- Thanks for the lesson, but I believe I know as much as you do about all these (and as a matter of fact I did explain~ [1]). Please be reminded to make good use of talk pages before making possibly controversial edits. It is always better to proceed to discussion when your edits are being reverted, rather than reverting back, effectively beginning revert wars. — Instantnood July 8, 2005 20:01 (UTC)
- Haha...you obviously still need more warnings despite claiming that you "know" your lesson. Category:Hong Kong literature, Flag of Macau, and Flag of Hong Kong are just some recent examples. Dont you think you should be the one to be reminded to make use of talk pages if you think it is "controversial" enough to be reverted? Somehow you do not seem to realise reverts are considered major and serious edits when they are not being used to counter vandalism. The rules clearly state that the person doing the revert must explain his revert. This can be done in the talk page, which you are obviously not using. But of coz, you are probably going to go all anal retentive and start whining that "no! you should be the one initiating the discussion there if you are molesting my precious pages, because any edit to MY edits ARE controversial!". Or are you?--Huaiwei 21:24, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- I did explain for the reverts on category:Hong Kong literature, and I did explain and bring the issue to talk page for the reverts on Flag of Hong Kong and Flag of Macau. Please don't say something not true to accuse others. — Instantnood 07:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Did you explain revert timestamped at 03:53, 9 July 2005 for category:Hong Kong literature? And I did not see a single entry made by you in the talk pages of Flag of Hong Kong and Flag of Macau, so who are you trying to kid? I have showed concrete evidence above that you failed to explain all of your reverts and to use the talk page when making reverts. And I also showed that you lied by claiming your innocence when there was non. What else do you have to say for yourself?--Huaiwei 08:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- I did not explain for every single revert, if the same explanation(s) of the previous revert(s) apply/ies. I did take the issue around the template and the flags to the talk page of template. Just that you (tho I can't actually tell if you're pretending or not) did not see it, and took this as an opportunity to accuse me for trying to kid and lying.
Please be reminded that this is the talk page for fish ball. You should not have got personal and debated on my edits on other articles, after you discovered I did not make the mistakes when editing this article that you accused. — Instantnood 08:55, July 10, 2005 (UTC)- Well, then you might be glad to know that each and every revert is considered a major edit in content disputes, and must be explained. A content dispute becomes clear if the revert reason is the same, so if you came to that point, you ought to realise the talk page is obviously needed, which you did not use. The rest of your points on my behavoir applies beautifully to yourself as well. If you dont want me to be personal, then quit being personal. Your constant reverts against my edits can actually be interpreted as a personal attack, especially when I am beginning to notice that they are being done without much thought or reason, with an avoidance of using the talk page since you dont have much valid reasons to make the revert in the first place I suppose? This discussion appears here, because you commited the same revert act in this page, and you lied by claiming your innocence. I am hardly surprised that you are uncomfortable about this, but you get what you sow.--Huaiwei 09:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- I do not care whether the edits are yours, but rather, what I care is what you have edited. I never avoid using talk pages, and it is merely your own opinion whether my reasons are valid ones, which you never seems to be satisfied when they are presented by me. Please move to an appropriate page if you do want to continue this off-track discussion unrelated to fish balls. — Instantnood 11:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, then you might be glad to know that each and every revert is considered a major edit in content disputes, and must be explained. A content dispute becomes clear if the revert reason is the same, so if you came to that point, you ought to realise the talk page is obviously needed, which you did not use. The rest of your points on my behavoir applies beautifully to yourself as well. If you dont want me to be personal, then quit being personal. Your constant reverts against my edits can actually be interpreted as a personal attack, especially when I am beginning to notice that they are being done without much thought or reason, with an avoidance of using the talk page since you dont have much valid reasons to make the revert in the first place I suppose? This discussion appears here, because you commited the same revert act in this page, and you lied by claiming your innocence. I am hardly surprised that you are uncomfortable about this, but you get what you sow.--Huaiwei 09:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- I did not explain for every single revert, if the same explanation(s) of the previous revert(s) apply/ies. I did take the issue around the template and the flags to the talk page of template. Just that you (tho I can't actually tell if you're pretending or not) did not see it, and took this as an opportunity to accuse me for trying to kid and lying.
- Did you explain revert timestamped at 03:53, 9 July 2005 for category:Hong Kong literature? And I did not see a single entry made by you in the talk pages of Flag of Hong Kong and Flag of Macau, so who are you trying to kid? I have showed concrete evidence above that you failed to explain all of your reverts and to use the talk page when making reverts. And I also showed that you lied by claiming your innocence when there was non. What else do you have to say for yourself?--Huaiwei 08:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- I did explain for the reverts on category:Hong Kong literature, and I did explain and bring the issue to talk page for the reverts on Flag of Hong Kong and Flag of Macau. Please don't say something not true to accuse others. — Instantnood 07:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Haha...you obviously still need more warnings despite claiming that you "know" your lesson. Category:Hong Kong literature, Flag of Macau, and Flag of Hong Kong are just some recent examples. Dont you think you should be the one to be reminded to make use of talk pages if you think it is "controversial" enough to be reverted? Somehow you do not seem to realise reverts are considered major and serious edits when they are not being used to counter vandalism. The rules clearly state that the person doing the revert must explain his revert. This can be done in the talk page, which you are obviously not using. But of coz, you are probably going to go all anal retentive and start whining that "no! you should be the one initiating the discussion there if you are molesting my precious pages, because any edit to MY edits ARE controversial!". Or are you?--Huaiwei 21:24, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the lesson, but I believe I know as much as you do about all these (and as a matter of fact I did explain~ [1]). Please be reminded to make good use of talk pages before making possibly controversial edits. It is always better to proceed to discussion when your edits are being reverted, rather than reverting back, effectively beginning revert wars. — Instantnood July 8, 2005 20:01 (UTC)
- Would you mind learning how to 1. use the talk page, 2. edit the page, 3. use the revert tool with full compliance to the revert rules, which btw includes the rule Always explain your reverts, which is a Wikipedia policy. Using the revert tool because you think you are not going to get your way via a proper discussion is not a valid excuse at all to your current behavior.--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
- I undid your incorrect edit before carrying on to edit the article. (And please mind your language.) — Instantnood July 8, 2005 19:25 (UTC)
- "Intuition" and "past experience" indeed. lol. So if my "intuition" tells me that I am talking to a toad, and from "past experiences" of toad-like noises being made from this same creature who goes by the pen name "Instantnood", it has got to be true. Anyway, as I have already said. If you know full well that the wrong category has been assigned, then may I know why you would prefer a revert instead of editing the page to make that small change?--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)
- I don't think I have ever expressed any opinion that fish ball is a solely Hong Kong food. I reverted for the first time because somebody made it a Cantonese cuisine, which is obviously not true. I went ahead to rewrite the leading paragraph after the revert, but that somebody was faster than I do. I'd say his conclusion that I considered his behaviour anti-Hong Kong was plainly based on intuition and his past experience. — Instantnood July 7, 2005 18:23 (UTC)
fish ball girlies
- In outdated Hong Kong slang, the term "fish ball girlies" (魚蛋妹) means young prostitutes, usually under the age of 18; and the brothel where these girls work is thus called "fish ball stall" (魚蛋檔). The etymology may be that the action of "stringing" fish balls (拮魚蛋 in Cantonese) resembles that of masturbation (in general, the "fish ball stalls" are not designed for sexual intercourse: the clients can only caress the prostitues and receive masturbation).
AFAIK the term "魚蛋妹" does not come from "stringing" fish balls (拮魚蛋 in Cantonese). The real origin was "making" fish balls "打魚蛋" or squeezing fish balls "擠魚蛋". In the old days before machines were used, fish balls were hand-made from fish pastes. To form a fish ball, put some fish paste in your hand, and squeeze a little bit out between your thumb and index finger to form a ball. (You may rent Steven Chow's old movie 食神 to see that action). This resembles the act of squeezing the tiny breasts of the under-aged girls in the 魚蛋檔. Also IMHO, "stringing" fish balls (拮魚蛋 in Cantonese) does not resemble masturbation at all. 24.205.90.226 20:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Use of the word "surimi"
Quote Fish balls are a type of food product made from surimi (Chinese: 魚漿). end quote.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say Fish balls are a type of food product made from ground/minced fish meat or fish paste? Why use a specific Japanese word to refer to something that is used in many different cusines? User:Sjschen in a edit summary wrote that Surimi is a Japanese term more commonly known in English for Chinese 魚漿. I've never seen "Surimi" before until I read this article. On packets of fishballs the ingredients are listed as minced fish meat or fish paste etc. LDHan 22:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
"Surimi" is ground/minced fish meat. However simply saying "minced fish" or even "fish paste" is somewhat, well, ambiguious. Namely, these translated or "description" term does adaquately specify the substance; most fish can be minced or pureed without it becoming the 魚漿 or surimi that we know. I agree that one does not see the word "surimi" too often in the chinese/asian markets. But truth be told, most of the public really has no knowledge of "fish paste" either. I stand behind using the word "surimi" instead of "fish paste" because it is well known in both western and eastern food services industries, as well as the fact that students in cuilinary schools are often informed about its "existence". That fact that it is (1)more specific and (2)has been accepted by the food services industry, warrants calling "...ground/minced fish meat or fish paste..." as simply "surimi". Sjschen 23:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Fish cake
If this text is correct: "魚饼 (yú bǐng) or "fish cake", which is made from the same substance as fish ball, are quite common too", it's worth mentioning. Badagnani 06:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Fish balls in Sweden
This articel seems to say that fish balls are pretty much only eaten in east Asia, while here in Sweden they are a very common food. Some proof to this is that there's a swedish wiki article for fish balls (fiskbullar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.88.54 (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- They're commonly eaten in Norway, too. --Safe-Keeper (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Are these also springy and a bit rubbery like the Chinese fish balls?Sjschen (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's also a very common dish in Faroe Islands. They're called "knettir" here, and are made from different types of "pulverized" fish and fat (Although fat is optional). And yes they are a bit rubbery (what you mean by springy, I don't know)--Hanus1987 (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah they should bounce if you drop them on the table. When I look at the recipe though the fish does not appear to have been beaten to a slurry but rather just squeezed and kneaded and then bound together with cornflour. The fishballs described here are made from surimi and when eating them there is no trace of meat fibres from the fish. Maybe knettir should be another article. Sjschen (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've added some info on Scandinavian fishballs, and subsections for Swedish and Faroe fishballs. Feel free to add more. --Wolf of Thor (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah they should bounce if you drop them on the table. When I look at the recipe though the fish does not appear to have been beaten to a slurry but rather just squeezed and kneaded and then bound together with cornflour. The fishballs described here are made from surimi and when eating them there is no trace of meat fibres from the fish. Maybe knettir should be another article. Sjschen (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's also a very common dish in Faroe Islands. They're called "knettir" here, and are made from different types of "pulverized" fish and fat (Although fat is optional). And yes they are a bit rubbery (what you mean by springy, I don't know)--Hanus1987 (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Are these also springy and a bit rubbery like the Chinese fish balls?Sjschen (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
鱼丸
Is 鱼丸 an alternate name? Badagnani (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Philippine fish balls
I'm thinking the fish balls sold by street vendors aren't necessarily quality-controlled which led to the less than round shape. They're often made with cheap ingredients and packed in bags so tight that they lost their rotundity. Otherwise, they're supposed to be round and if you're really lucky you just might end up with a few real round ones. Come on, haven't anyone thought why they're so cheap and affordable to everyone? --Destron Commander (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This article
This article is a disaster. I'd like someone to go through and delete large portions of it, particularly stuff having to do with the pricing of fish balls and problems vendors face and so on. It's told from POV of the author's country. Fish balls are available all over the world. This article needs almost a total re-write. I'd delete extreme problem sections myself, but since I don't have a wikipedia account this would likely be seen as vandalism. 24.189.207.34 (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposed Edits
I will be attempting to "copyedit" the page, making it more in line with the five c's: clear, correct, concise, comprehensive, and consistent. There are a few major issues I would like to address in my edits: (1) Increase the NPOV of the article –it is currently told mainly from the author’s perspective and speculations about how fish balls are made and sold in their country; (2) Removing irrelevant details that appear to be more speculative than factual; (3) Increasing the readability of the article by altering organization and style to be less subjective and more informative.
The proposed edits will be posted to my personal Sandbox and from there, based on feedback, it may or may not be transferred to the actual article. Any feedback or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Bubbleguppies (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Bubbleguppies
Grammar
I found that there are many grammar mistakes in the first half of the article, so I have made changes to it. See my personal sandbox for my editing and give suggestions.Tinalei2014 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinalei2014 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fish ball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029184814/http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20120222/-1-2584399/1.html to http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20120222/-1-2584399/1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Issues with Seafood Ball food articles
I ran into Prawn ball in the Unsourced since 2005 listing. Food articles are notoriously poor quality since it's sort of like 'folk information' and it turns into a dilemma of commmon knowledge vs. WP:RS. I'm trying to untangle some of the issues. I think there's plenty of information about ball-shaped processed seafoods, but I don't think the articles are serving readers well. Please bear with my wall-of-text below:
The main problem is that there's a clump of very over-lapping-subject, unsourced/weak-sourced articles about ...balls. Prawn ball, Shrimp ball, Steamed meatball, etc. One problem is that there isn't a distinct 'name' in English, so there's overlap with a variety of similar foods (including European Fish balls that have no common link to the Asian types). Shrimp ball is described as a "Wuhan refreshment" while being categorized as a "Cantonese Cuisine"- confusing.
RSs exist about seafood/meat balls (scholarly-type ones that usually discuss the manufacture), but the overlapping content are hindering my ability to decide how to use them. For example, a scholarly paper that says meatballs tend to be mislabeled on their packaging. On that note, even seafood balls from the market will more often be a mixture; "cuttlefish balls" "shrimp balls" etc., will be labelled as including some cheap filler fish (so are they fish ball or not?). Sort of like what's mentioned here, although the context is for seafood products overall and not specific to balls as the previous. This news bit elaborates on the "creative labelling" and blurred line between fish and crustacean. In the same vein but less about dodgy business practices: an article from the Washington Post describes fishballs made with the addition of ground shrimp or shrimp as a substitution meat (but not directly calling them "shrimp balls", rather "fish balls made with shrimp").
I think "Seafood balls" is the parent topic, but it's not really a searchable term the way fish ball is, but I don't feel like merging prawn ball into fish ball is quite correct. However, I think some kind of merge could really strengthen the article(s) to better explain this kind of food. At the very least these articles all have issue banners tagged for some number of years and I'm thinking some high-level organizational clean up can help resolve some of that and better welcome new information.
TLDR:
- Can we merge Prawn ball and Shrimp ball?
- Could they both be merged into Fish ball?
Forgot to add my signature, here we go. Best regards, Estheim (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I should boldly redirect and merge all of them to Fish ball, and do what you can to source the variations, stating they are often mixtures. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Estheim, I agree, this can be merged with as many redirects as are necessary. —valereee (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback, @Chiswick Chap:, @Valereee:. I will merge the shrimp and prawn ball into Fish ball, and probably do some clean up to resolve some banner issues. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Practical research
Significant of the study the effects of different cooking oils on the taste of homemade fishballs 115.147.56.165 (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)