Talk:Oyster omelette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

regional name variations[edit]

Horjai is the Minnan word for oyster, while hojai is the Cantonese one. The Mandarin name should be doulai, nevertheless. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 12:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In Mandarin, an oyster is called 牡蠣 (Pinyin: mǔ lì), not "doulai" (豆泥 in Cantonese?). Please consider improving your Mandarin. :-) - Alanmak 07:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
fyr, mine is a Cantonese pronunciation of 牡蠣. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
But the Cantonese pronunciation of 牡蠣 should sound more "mao lai". 杜 is pronounced as "dou", but 牡 should be pronounced as "mao". I know you may think that Mandarin is a symbol of mainland China, and you don't like it. So, don't care about it. Instead, please consider improving your Cantonese. :-) - Alanmak 14:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Wakakaka~ ^^ -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
It is known in Hokkien in Singapore and Malaysia as Oh (Hao in Mandarin).--Huaiwei 14:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite the complex table, one can break down the names into combination and permutation of three things, namely the different names of oyster, size and cooking method in different regions.

  • Oyster can be called three names depending on region: 蠔(蚝 in TC & SC resp.), 蚵, 牡蛎
  • The insertion of 仔 (kid size) to indicate the small size of the oyster used in the dish.
  • The omelett can be called three names too: 煎(pan fry), 烙(searing), 餅(cake, short for pan cake).

You can make up as many name as you like by picking from the above list. You can also throw both pan frying and cake in the same phrase.

Kowloonese 18:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh luak?[edit]

Terence, are you sure it is Oh luak? We commonly now it as Oh jian.--Huaiwei 15:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, never heard of Oh luak. From the southern tip of Johore to the northern states of Penang, Perlis and Kedah I've only ever heard of people calling it Oh jian.

I think the table in the article mixed up the Chinese characters with the pronunciation in the second and last row. Oh Luak sounds more like 蠔烙 than 蚝煎. But the way Oh is the min nan of 蚵 (which read as ke in Mandarin). Kowloonese 18:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

From, 烙 can be read: lo͘, lō, lo̍k. But there is no dictionary entry in for 蠔烙 . Hongthay (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


We need pictures for this~ -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

A web page for reference[edit]

This web page provides the English translations for a lot of Chinese dishes. I think it would be useful for this article, as well as some other articles about Chinese dishes. Please take a look. - Alanmak 07:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't find in google search[edit],GGLD:2005-15,GGLD:zh-TW&q=%22%E7%89%A1%E8%9B%8E%E7%85%8E%E8%9B%8B%22 -- Jerry Crimson Mann 12:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

revert war ridiculous[edit]

I suggest this be cooled down, or it could end up in WP:LAME. ;-) Huaiwei, I believe that adding information is better than removing it, as they are all legitimate, but that's my two cents. There are no neutrality problems anyhow. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 13:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not so sure if "adding information is better than removing it" in all instances. Having those entities listed together suggests this dish is as common, when it is not so.--Huaiwei 13:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
You have just kept saying it's not. That's hardly convincing. — Instantnood 13:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
And you keep saying it is, which isnt convincing either.--Huaiwei 14:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I did not say it is. I was not me who added it, but it was you who keep deleting it without any justification. — Instantnood 14:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Which is a really strange statement to make. Are you saying I am only allowed to delete unverified entries made by you, but not when it is added by others? :D--Huaiwei 14:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
You're allowed to delete anything as long as you can justify the deletion. I was not the person who added it, and therefore I am not the right person you should ask for the reason why it was added. — Instantnood 15:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Was that rule set by you? On the other hand, I am pretty sure any information in wikipedia "should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher" as far as Verifiability is concerned? Is it on the onus of the original writer of the "deletor" in showing justification? If you do not want to take any responsiblity, and say you dont have to explain the addition of a content, then mind explaining your continued insistance in re-adding it? By reverting, you are supporting the content you tried to revert. Your basic lack of responsibility is well known. This demonstrates it yet again.--Huaiwei 15:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Re " By reverting, you are supporting the content you tried to revert ": No. What I did was like maintenance. I noticed your deletion is not verified, and you have not justified it, and that's why I've reverted your deletion. If you want to challenge its addition, please find out the diff links of the addition, and ask that person / those people for verifications. — Instantnood 15:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Pardon my language, but "maintenance" my arse. You demand for verification only in edits you dont agree with, irrespective of whether they are additions or deletions, so you can do better with your play acting and quit pretending you are doing some kind of "maintenance service for wikipedia. Your pretence is getting so obvious, it is becoming quite lame to see it getting overused.--Huaiwei 16:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
If I agree with something, I agree because I know it can be verified, and therefore there's no reason for me to revert the edit and request for verification. — Instantnood 16:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It's probably better to assume that this dish has gained some popularity, since foods easily do. The notability of a dish rests not on exclusive national identity, but rather cultural impact. The more cultures it hits (or the more regions it spreads to), the better, anyway. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 14:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
And we are left wondenig what is the true cultural impact this dish has in HK. Singaporeans are known to fly all the way to Taiwan just to try their Oh Jian. Do we do the same to HK? Tell me if you did, coz I chose to go to Taiwan instead.--Huaiwei 14:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

About the "stub" templates[edit]

Some Wikipedians are trying to add several templates - such as China-related stub, Republic of China-related stub, Hong Kong-related stub, Macau-related stub etc. - for articles that involve some cultural stuffs that are shared among different regions in the Greater China area. But strictly speaking, "China" already includes "Hong Kong" and "Macau" as they are the special administrative regions of the People's Republic of China; and "China" is also a term that collectively refers to the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, per naming conventions in Wikipedia. Some Wikipedians suggest that it is easier for editors to find out the article if it is placed in more stub-categories. But that seems kind of redundant. Is it a common practice here to add as many stub templates as possible, even if their contents are kind of redundant? This is something that have to be discussed. Actually, one template "China-related stub", or "Greater China area-related stub", is perfectly fine. But perhaps those who are from Hong Kong just care about the Hong Kong-related category, and those from Macau just care about the Macau-related category. :-) This leads to that some people may find it necessary to put the article in more stub-categories. Well, let's discuss about this. - Alanmak 05:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree about stub proliferation to a certain extent. As far as political entities, this article should probably carry a China stub and maybe a {{Taiwan-stub}} (but not the more political Republic of China) due to its cultural importance in Taiwan. LuiKhuntek 07:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

We're having the same stub type for both ROC and Taiwan, since stub types are for editors to look at. They're not part of the materials for articles. Instantnood 20:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The subject matter is important in a lot of different regions in the Greater China area. But again, having one for "China" and one for "Taiwan" seems to be a bias towards the supporters of "一中一台" (literally "one China and one Taiwan") and Taiwan independence. This is violating the principle of political neutrality. - Alanmak 14:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
There's no way we can avoid the fact that they are now separated. Nevertheless there's hardly any connotation by merely applying a stub template. It's simply a tool for editors to locate the stubs in a convenient manner, in order to improve them. Instantnood 15:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems Greater China is being discussed here in a cultural context. I thought there was a claim that it it used in businesses/economics, and henced should not be used in culinary discussions?--Huaiwei 12:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not a claim, but a fact. I'm still awaiting the justifications that the use of the term Greater China in cultural and social contexts is as notable as you have claimed. (Discussion around this term would better be carried forward at talk:Greater China. It's not immediately relevant to 蠔仔餅.) — Instantnood 18:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Show us why it is a fact. Where is your proof? A google search? All I needed to show, is that the phrase is used in cultural contexts as well, and I dont have to show they are equally notable (and since when did I claim equal notability) to use it here. Instead, it is your onus to show the phrase is not used in any cultural contexts since you resisted its use in that context here.--Huaiwei 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Assume good will, not skeptical. =) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 09:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I am pretty sure I was asking for factual verification above, and I dont need bad will to make that request.--Huaiwei 12:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but[edit]

How is it made? All that other stuff is a candiadte for wiktionary. Rich Farmbrough 13:17 29 March 2006 (UTC).


I have only tried two types of oyster omelette before, one in Taiwan and the other in a Chiu Chow restaurant. They are similar but anyone can tell the differences. For example, the Taiwanese style use a lot of starch in the filling, so it is almost gelatineous. The Chiu Chow style is more like regular omelette. Perhaps the starch should be listed as a major ingredient at least for the Taiwanese style. Kowloonese 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never tried those two styles of oyster omelette you mentioned. I've only tried the Singaporean version, so I would not know anything about it. However, I believe that starch should not be listed as a major ingredient in the Taiwanese style as you need starch to cook the omelette. :D --Terence Ong 10:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
By the same logic, flour is not an ingredient of bread? BTW, I never add starch when I make my ham and cheese omelette. The Taiwanese recepe is kind of special in my opinion. Kowloonese 00:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Lol, you do have a point. Its chinese omelette. Starch should be added after all. --Terence Ong 05:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out the exact savory sauce that's put on top of Taiwanese style oyster omelettes. I've been told it's sweet hot chili sauce but it's not the same thing. I can't seem to find it sold in any store in Taiwan. (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Potato starch and duck egg[edit]

My parents are from Chiu Chow. In my family, the starch used in 蠔烙 is very specific. It is always potato starch, but never corn starch nor wheat flour. And the eggs used are always duck egg and never chicken egg. But then I think this amount to original research. --Chan Tai Man 16:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)