From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Italy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old discussion[edit]

What an Italian told me.

I had a very close friend who told me that in Italy the mutation of lasagna over time has taken from it's original seed's of cooking pot and generally means, anything you have on hand throw in the pot, or americanized "leftovers". Does anyone have information to correlate this? Please feel free to contact me at Thanks in advance....Jerry


it used as a source

Is the use of Ragu on this page neccesary? It sounds like a brand placement rather than a cultural formality?

Ragù in Italian is any meat-based sauce, not a specific brand. See it:Ragù. 03:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Lasagne vs. Lasagna[edit]

Google says: Lasagna is more popular (search limited for English-language pages). bogdan | Talk 21:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That shows that there are more Americans than Brits writing about it, I suppose. Restricting to "site:uk" gets 36000 for -a and 168000 for -e. 03:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how this affects an English page and usage, but lasagna would be the Italian singular form of the word, while lasagne is the plural. Pnkrockr 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's strange that US English has chosen the singular form lasagna, but not spaghetto or macarono, for example.

I've checked Italian pages; as I expected, I got 487,000 "lasagne" compared to a (still surprisingly high) 187,000 "lasagna". And I note that the stupid spelling corrector in my web browser highlights "lasagne" as wrong. *sigh*. In any case, the discrepancy at least merits mention on the main page. I'll consider doing that when I have time. Groogle 00:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems the article still does not consistently use one or the other. This is sloppy. I am not sure what the Wikipedia policy would say, but for now I will default to the Italian. If anyone wants to disagree/change, please do so consistently. Leberquesgue (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean "Most English-speaking people follow the Italian usage and use the plural "lasagne" to refer to both the dish and the pasta, but Americans commonly use the singular "lasagna".".? And what does it mean "there are more Americans writing about it than Brits"? Of course there are, there are several times more Americans than Britons. There are more Americans who speak english as their native language than all native english speakers in the rest of the world combined. Who has even ever heard the word "Lasagne" outside of restaurants which bother to translate EVERYTHING into correct italian. How ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The sentence in the article is reworded, and a source citation provided. —ADavidB 09:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In Italian, a single sheet of pasta is a lasagna. The dish of multiple layers is lasagne. As another commenter implied, calling the whole dish a "lasagna" is like calling a dish of noodles a "macarono" or a "spaghetto." I propose changing the article accordingly. (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, not Italian Wikipedia. The article title should be in English, and the vastly more common term in English is "lasagna". Right now, the article doesn't even bother to mention that until the end of the opening. Wikipedia is not a language lesson. The rule in Wikipedia is clear: use the prevailing term. --Tysto (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just felt I'd note in this section that I removed the absurd, awkwardly thrown in bit about how only Americans incorrectly pluralize "lasagne" as "lasagnas" whereas the rest of the world, apparently from Italy to the UK to Bolivia to Papua New Guinea are free from such errors. The citation they gave ( doesn't actually state this, and if it did it hardly constitutes an objective statistical study that would back up such a bizarre and petty claim.

At any rate, not every food-related article has to have a section (or sentence) devoted to "hurrr durp Americans r doin it rong!!1" Grow the fuck up. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • So pointing out the sheer irrationality of American spelling (lasagna for a dish made of PLURAL lasagna sheets, pedophile instead of paedophile when pedo- means feet) means the REST OF THE WORLD should grow up? This is Wikipedia and therefore open to all discussion; do not presume to tell others what is childish and that we are not allowed to question one English-speaking country out of several. There is no excuse for your jingosim. ~ Ciara —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • No, I mean you in particular need to grow the fuck up. The overwhelming majority of your countrymen are happy to let Americans spell things the American way, and don't need to take a valium every time they see an article with a name like zucchini or rutabaga. The English language (all dialects thereof), especially with regard to foreign loanwords, is terribly inconsistent when it comes to pluralizing (feel free to read that as pluralising!). Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that got a bit...heated (so to speak). Try to remember we're talking about the name for a dish of noodles and cheese, please. Anyway, both lasagna and lasagne are used in America (really the United States of America), and I know this because I live in America. I was able to figure on my lonesome that technically lasagna is probably singular and lasagne plural, but I wasn't sure how that applies specifically to the dish of noodles and cheese, and I don't think I should have had to worm my way through the discussion page to learn how (but thanks, March 5, 2009). Let's put this information in the article itself. Thanks. TheScotch (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really heated, just a valid response to some asinine anon IP looking for an argument. That aside, the article handles the alternate spelling in a nice manner. However, what lasagne IS is not covered very well - a couple of recipes would go a ways in fixing that.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
My Italian language teacher (an Italian, from Veneto) says that 'lasanga' (feminine singular - so ends in 'a') is a single sheet of the pasta. 'Lasagne' (feminine plural, so ends in 'e') refers to multiple sheets, and is the name of the dish as served (as that has multiple sheets.) I know some feminine words end in 'e' in the singular and 'i' in the plural but this isn't one of them. Of course this article should be named using the dominant term that is used in the English language. Format (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Many non-Italian languages?[edit]

The article text claimed that "many non-Italian languages" use the singular "lasagna" to refer to the dish. I know of none apart from US English, and none have been substantiated. I've changed this text to the substantiated US English. If there are others, feel free to change this, with an appropriate citation. Groogle (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The more we can stay away from vagueries, the better. Ibadibam (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge - Lazanki[edit]

The Lazanki article currently doesn't have enough information to merit standing alone, and would be better suited to fleshing out this article. Also they appear to contradict in etymology? so perhaps some one, when merging, can address that. - BalthCat 01:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, sure no! I am Polish, and Lazanki has hardly anything to do with Lasagna! It's a very, very different meal! Will write more about Lazanki when have some time, but guys do not merge it, as it would be just wrong in terms of true and false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Understood :) - BalthCat 05:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Lasagne origin dispute[edit]

The dispute over the origin of the lasagna recipe could be right, delete the external links to the actuals lasagna recipe over the internet is definitely wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:50, May 14 2007 (UTC)

the mention about the origin of lasagna is much more matter of factual and strongly worded than its citation source... i would suggest it be re written or removed.
--Warfreak 00:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

lasagna was invented in 1839 by Italian cook Phil D'antonio--[[User:anon 00:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Bologna??? Philip D'antonio 1839??? - Rome: Apicio I sec., De re coquinaria, Laganae. Naples 1300 ca. Liber de Coquina, "Delle lasagne" and "Se vuoi fare torta di lasagne" (If you like to make torte of lasagne).--Schellenberg (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Lasagne is undoubtedly much older than 1839. Also, the Italian version of the article lists at least 6 regions of origin and, as far as I know, lasagne is not a typical recipe of Naples but more of Emilia-Romagna (lasagne alla ferrarese are the typical example). Also, it's lasagne and not lasagna.

ICE77 (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


The first external link in this article is basically a piece of product placement - am removing it.--Shtove (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

so is the last link. "song X by band Y contains a lyric containing the word lasagna". You've gotta be kidding me! Hey, my website contains the word too! Am removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridium (talkcontribs) 19:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture section doesn't belong here[edit]

The popular culture section clearly doesn't belong in the article. It is trivial, frivolous, and unencyclopedic. I suggest removing it. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually spent ages this afternoon merging the "popular culture" (AKA trivia) section into the main article! Now only a few hours later, it has been put back. It's not a revert, and it does not seem to be vandalism either, but I do think it is misguided to have a "popular culture" section.
I am tempted to revert it back to the way I left it, but I don't want to pretend that the article was definitive at that point. Hoping someone else will back me up and do something to merge the information back again. Leevclarke (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I just read the article in more detail, and I will definitely not revert it to the way I left it before, but I think I will try to merge the trivia again. Let me know what you think! Leevclarke (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you made a good rewrite, with a clever tie between origin and cultural references. I moved the Łazanki sentence from the intro to the Variants section, and pluralized one word. —Adavidb 01:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.  :-) The article seems to have reached a stable state now, so I will stop monitoring it. Leevclarke (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, as I can see you've had a discussion about it, but reading this article for the first time and finding the likes of Joey Tribiani and Garfield in the "Origin" section just seems weird. What's the problem with just having a separate cultural references section? Passingtramp (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Garfield in relation to lasagna is trivia, wherever you put it, whatever you call it. If you want to talk about Garfield, find a Garfield article. TheScotch (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Seinfeld segment[edit]

I love Seinfeld as much as the next geek, but does the mention of "Vegetable Lasagna" in an episode really bear mentioning in this article? In fact, does any of the popular culture stuff add anything to this article? Weird Al seems to be misplaced on a food article as well.

Page move[edit]

I have moved the page as the word is a loanword, and as such should reflect the original word if possible Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your plan to force 300 million Americans to spell it "correctly"? Do you plan to lobby spellcheck makers? --Tysto (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Image caption wrong?[edit]

The caption says 'lasagne verdi' but the pasta in the dish is clearly not green it's white.Traveller palm (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Some may consider that adding spinach to the recipe, rather than when making the pasta, makes it 'lasagne verdi'. Any reliable source(s) to verify a need for it to be one way or the other? —ADavidB 12:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
How about this [[1]]? As a UK lasagna eater, I always understood that's what lasagne verde was - green pasta sheets. However, in searching for this I did find a lot of references confirming your recipe definition too, so I accept now the caption isn't necessarily wrong. Sorry, I'll get back in my box! Traveller palm (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, second thoughts no I won't - The article states 'Classic Bologna lasagne should be made with Lasagne verdi (green lasagne) which is egg pasta with added spinach' and then right next to it is a picture with the caption 'lasagne verdi' showing a lasagne (albeit containing spinach) but with white pasta. That's misleading. I think both definitions of lasagne verdi should be given for the sake of continuity. Green pasta is an abomination of course, but that's just me being incendiary. Traveller palm (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion regarding both definitions of 'lasagne verdi' and made an associated addition to the article. —ADavidB 01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a definite improvement. Much clearer, thanks. Traveller palm (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-baked lasagne[edit]

It would be nice to see some mention of lasagna dishes other than lasagne al forno. It is possible to just boil lasagne and serve them with a sauce, as with any other shape of pasta, rather than in a casserole. Usually these are the broad strips, not the flat sheets. There is some mention of these dishes in the article it:lasagne (pasta alimentare).

This came to my attention because I was reading Non Sequitur today, and Obviousman was railing against the phrase baked lasagna, asking what other kinds of lasagna there might be. But of course there are other sorts. Searching on-line, I find that this was not the strip intended to run today; apparently the Mercury News declined to run that one. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The other dishes mentioned in the Italian article are not made with the "lasagne pasta shape" but with similar regional variation. Sagne 'ncannulate are made with a leavened dough.--Dia^ (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


i added an image that includes lasagna noodle

it would be great if someone could clip it to show just lasagna

that's beyond my ability — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This image is used on nearly two dozen other Wikipedia articles (in various languages), so modifying the same image file to show only the lasagna noodle would not be best.—ADavidB 22:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually it can be clipped and uploaded as a separate image.TMCk (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly one of the oldest shapes[edit]

I'm not sure what the lede sentence means, "possibly one of the oldest shapes." One of the oldest shapes of pasta? I presume it's not referring to geometric shapes in general. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, pasta shapes; the sentence is updated accordingly. —ADavidB 05:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Durum wheat[edit]

I updated the sentence suggesting that all lasagne must be made with durum wheat to reflect reality. The decree linked requires that commercially-sold noodles be made with durum wheat. It has nothing to do with what goes on in kitchens among people actually making pasta (and as a side note, if you walked in on someone making lasagne noodles at home with durum wheat and water, you should probably flee). Junkmale (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. – The support and oppose votes are almost evenly split, and there is no policy or practice issue that would require closing this in favor of one version or the other. Historically the article has moved back and forth between these names at least three times. The move war is slow enough that protection is unnecessary, but I hope that any future would-be movers will seek consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

LasagneLasagna – This article from its beginnings has seen multiple undiscussed moves back-and-forth between the two titles, the most recent coming in 2012 to "lasagne". It should be noted that there has never been a consensus reached, but rather several unilateral moves with little policy backing and no support from Wiki guidelines backing them. As per WP:UE and English use here, this is our best choice. While British usage does favor the "e" spelling, American English goes with the "a" variety by a landslide. And again, there's not really a long-standing variety of English here that I found (see diffs "a" here and "e" here and "a" here and "a" here up through this "e" version). I don't see any reason to override the more common of the two spellings. This is similar to Grey, I think, where despite the article originally existing at Gray they moved because the "a" spelling was more startling to UK English readers than the "e" is to AmE readers. And here I think it's the other way. What do you think? Red Slash 00:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - it is a plural issue not a spelling issue; a single lasagna does not a dish of lasagne (plural) make. Compare Penne not "a single penna," or spaghetti not "a single spaghetto." In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, in English, "lasagna" is the name for the dish in general. Red Slash 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
You say that but in American English sources "a lasagna" may or may not mean that, looking at some of the American entries they seem to be (correctly) using lasagna as an adjective "a lasagna pan", "gluten-free lasagna noodles", as British English "a lasagna bed" (herb gardening). Also American English sometimes uses the plural (and not just in New Jersey), Texas Monthly 1991 p176 "Even so, our party polished off a stromboli, a calzone, and a bubbling hot dish of lasagne." WP:COMMONALITY would argue for keeping the plural acceptable in both UK and US. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment.[2] For comparison, here is gray/grey.[3] Apteva (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I interpret this to mean two things. The more obvious analysis is that "lasagna" is dominant in AmE and "lasagne" is dominant in BrE. But second, we can see that the subject is discussed far more in AmE texts than in BrE texts, and thus the AmE results skew the general English results toward "lasagna". The question is, does this bias invalidate these n-gram results for the purpose of determining commonality? Ibadibam (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose. Of course we use English, but here we have an incompletely naturalized loanword, still closely connected to its language of origin. To clarify, I think practically any educated person could tell you that lasagne/lasagna is an Italian word, whereas not too many could tell you that alcohol is an Arabic word. In that context, I think source-language grammar is a reasonable tiebreaker. --Trovatore (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    Just because the origin has hung around in our consciousness doesn't mean it's incompletely adapted into English. Do Brits say "These lasagne are terrific" or "This lasagne is terrific"? Because I doubt it's the first. How much more can you ask for? Red Slash 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Trovatore, this is too close to call between British and American preferences, better to go with the spelling preferred by Italian-Wikipedia it:Lasagne. Green Giant (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the first version of the article used "lasagna", and we are not beholden to Italian, since this is the English Wikipedia. "lasagna" is singular in English, as is "penne" , it is also plural. Per WP:COMMONALITY, it is also the favoured title, since it is used in BrE, and is the virtually only form used in AmE and CdnE. -- (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The last claim is actually not true. It is not "virtually the only form used in AmE"; that's just false. --Trovatore (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you see Apteva's link? I think it's pretty clear... and yes, absolutely, the "a" version is omnipresent in the U.S. and the "e" version is basically non-existent--see the sources posted. I don't dispute that there is a preference for the "e" version in the UK. But the discrepancy is far less. Red Slash 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's just not true. I have definitely seen lasagne in the States. --Trovatore (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
And Apteva's link is good but you can't beat visual evidence. Green Giant (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
IDK about the others, but Barilla is an Italian company (right?) who of course would use the proper Italian name. It's not like Wal-Mart is going to force a different title onto them. The ratio of "a" to "e" is like 8 to 1 in the states, and I would bet that most of the "e" people are deliberately using the foreign name, as Barilla is. Red Slash 05:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, and I don't think Italian grammar should have any bearing on this. In English, "a lasagna" is a single dish comprising many lasagna noodles. Powers T 15:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – As currently written, this article is primarily about a type of pasta, and secondarily about a dish made with that pasta. Every other Italian pasta article on List of pasta has a plural title, and it doesn't seem like the secondary meaning of "lasagne/lasagna" is worth making an exception for. But this article should note "lasagna" as a North American variant spelling for the name of the dish. Ibadibam (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    • So should we split the article then? I'm not sure what to take from this. Red Slash 05:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I seriously doubt that's what Ibadibam meant; it seems a very strange interpretation. I take his point to mean that the article should be named after the noodles, not after the dish. --Trovatore (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
        • That's more it, yes. My argument is void if the article is rewritten with the dish as the primary meaning, something that's not entirely unreasonable given that the dish seems to be more notable than the pasta. Of course, were that to happen, it wouldn't resolve the current discussion, just invalidate my one argument. Ibadibam (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support since that was the first spelling in the article in 2002. Given the reference to Garfield in those two sentences, I really need a good reason to oppose what Garfield uses and policy to respect the first usage when there is a spelling issue. If this does come down to an issue of the pasta v the dish, then a rewrite of the article as proposed to shift the focus after a rename seems like the best option. Also the engrams above seem to support reverting back to the first name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm, my opinion is that the article really should be about the pasta, in line with other pasta articles. The dish is just something you do with that particular pasta, so it's less important. --Trovatore (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
      • But how do you determine if the dish or the pasta is the most common usage? In this case I think it is clear that the dish is the most common. Very few pastas share a name with a dish. But when they do it would seem likely that the dish has become more notable then the pasta style used. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
        • An interesting question, in light of the disputed etymology of the word. If it comes from λάγανον, a type of bread, then "lasagna" originally referred to the noodle. If it comes from lasanum, a cooking pot, then it referred to the dish. That's not to say that etymology should influence our consensus process, only to point out that even from a historical perspective it's ambiguous as to whether the pasta or the dish is the primary meaning. Ibadibam (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is counterintuitive to those with a slight interest in the Italian language, you probably will have a little interest in the Italian language if you enjoy Italian food. User:In ictu oculi made some good points in his reason and comments. The American spelling doesn't need to slop over everything, baloney doesn't for example. And if you add all the English language viewers worldwide that aren't in America then it's too much of a compromise to have (American spelling) in brackets beside the counterintuitive title. John Cengiz talk 10:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support per WP:RETAIN. And frankly, I'm disappointed that we're engaging in the squabble of national varieties that such policies were created to prevent. Please review the move history of this page. When it was created in October 2002, the article's title used the American spelling. This title was stable for over six years before being moved to the British spelling in November 2008. It remained for six months before being revered in May 2009, at which point the American spelling became stable for another 3 years. It was moved back to the British spelling in August 2012, having remained there for almost nine months now. All said and done, the original American spelling, which has been used for over 9 years total, should be retained. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Pardon me, I did miss that. I still don't understand why page logs give incomplete reports like that. It looks like that move used an edit summary instead of the regular move notice, so perhaps that was a technical issue from back then. At any rate, the situation isn't as clear as I thought. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
It rather looks like the move history page only shows outgoing moves, i.e. moves away from the queried page. To see moves to that page one has to query the other title. At any rate, I think your raising of WP:RETAIN is still valid. This is essentially a futile debate around national varieties of English. Ibadibam (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Moves before 2006 seem to have been logged differently from later on - I think that edit summary is actually the pro forma used back then. It's very hard to track the location history of articles from the first five years which makes it almost impossible to assert what the article title was in those days. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per my reading of Ibadibam. If "a" is used in both UK and US English, while "e" is virtually never used in the USA, then "a" would seem to be more reasonable. Let's think of this as a matter of surprising the reader — will "lasagna" or "lasagne" cause less reader surprise? Which one will make fewer readers think that we've made a mistake? If British readers are more likely to encounter "a" than Americans are to encounter "e" (and as an American, I know that I can't remember ever seeing something being sold as "lasagne", but I've seen "lasagna" for sale plenty of times), we'll help the readers more. Note to closer. Please don't close this as no consensus! Please close it as "move to lasagna" or "keep at lasagne"; we need a consensus to help prevent undiscussed moves. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It's more than a little amusing that you cited my argument but have a different !vote than mine. What were you referring to, specifically? Ibadibam (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry, Ibadibam; I saw Red Slash's comment (the last one at 22:55) and somehow thought that you'd said it. Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, keep the current as the most recent stable per WP:RETAIN. At this stage it's hard to tell just what was the original vesion used on the first substantial version of the article and it's clear from links and comments above that both spellings can be found on sale in both Britain and America. Whatever we use will cause people surprise and everything else being pretty equal we might as well use the spelling closer to the Italian use. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Texas Lasagne?[edit]

If this page is going to link to "Big Ranch Chicken" because it's also known as "Texas Lasagne", then the page on "Big Ranch Chicken" should also say that it's also known as "Texas Lasagne". Since the page on "Big Ranch Chicken" has issues, I would guess the best solution is to remove the link, but that seems heavy-handed without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam1729 (talkcontribs) 03:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The same IP who added "Texas Lasagne" to this page added it to King Ranch Chicken at the same time. Although that editor didn't provide a source, a Google search shows that a number of recipes call it "Texas Lasagna" or "Mexican Lasagna". But there doesn't seem to be much in reliable sources to document this. Ibadibam (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lasagne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lasagne. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)