Talk:Blood sausage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Health?[edit]

The section on "The Americas" includes this line: "In Colombia, it's either called morcilla or rellena, and is usually filled with rice and peas. Contrary to beliefs, this version is usually deep-fried, and though is quite a health risk, its taste is quite popular."

Similar to the discussion below about whether eating it uncooked is safe, does anyone actually have any citable source indicating health concerns about blood sausages/black puddings, raw or otherwise? The "quite a health risk" seems at the least unsubstantiated, and if it is a routine health risk, this should certainly merit a section related to that... JoAnneThrax 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't this be more to do with the risk to your arteries from the deep frying, rather than anything to do with the product itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.28.253 (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

African American Pudding[edit]

Some clever vandal changed "black pudding" to "african american pudding". See the history page for details. I just changed it back. Porkchopmcmoose 22:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In a related note recently the term blood sausage has come into use as a slang term for a penis. I don't really think it adds to the article. --Dmfallak 21:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. While I am very committed to fighting vandalism, you are right in saying "clever vandal". Most vandal's lack of creativity and wit bothers me almost as much as their lack of respect for fellow Wikipedia users. House of Scandal 01:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clever? That? 76.115.59.36 (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Always mammals?[edit]

Is it always mammal's blood? I know that the Polish use duck's blood in soup. Rmhermen 12:50, Sep 24, 2003 (UTC)

Chicken and goose blood have also been used, but it seems that the use of anything other than pork or beef blood, and to a lesser extent sheep and goat, is pretty rare. Guess it should be mentioned, though. CyberMaus 15:10, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
In Sweden, in particularly the northern parts where the salmon goes upstream to play, salmon blood has been a commonly used source. BP OMowe (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

blood food in hong kong and guangdong[edit]

it doesn't have anything to do with beans, and it's not called tofu, if it's made by pig's blood it's called 豬紅, while chicken's 雞紅 (pig red and chicken red respectively). it is done by having just the blood to solidify in a bucket then cut into cubes, it's eaten hot in a sort of boiling gravy.

always solid?[edit]

I had a blutwurst in a country restaurant here in Switzerland yesterday that had the inner consistency of jelly. My German colleague tells me this is quite usual. Being used to the normal, fairly solid english black-pudding (as illustrated here) I was quite surprised. (Actually, I found it quite difficult to keep it down - the consistency giving me more problems than the animal gut casing).

nutritional info[edit]

I don't think it's a good idea to have this. It refers to one particular brand of sausage (and it doesn't say where it comes from) and it's impossible to say that every blood sausage in the entire world will have values equivalent to the ones listed here.--Stella luna 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varient?[edit]

As the varient name is blood pudding and the common name is black pudding, shouldn't this article be called Black Pudding rather then blood sausage (which isn't really mentioned in the article anyway...)

Black Pudding NOT Blood Sausage![edit]

If the only places that eat it call it black pudding WHY does it keep getting changed to the word that people never use: blood sausage? Cokehabit 10:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Blood sausage is a generic name for all the varieties throughout the world. Black pudding is merely a specific name for the variety found in certain English-speaking countries.
The variety commonly eaten here in Belgium certainly isn't called black pudding (it's called boudin here). I suggest moving it back. --David Edgar 12:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it back, as it's clearly not an uncontroversial move. It should be posted on WP:RM if anybody still wants to move it. Also, if it is moved, it should be to Black pudding, not Black Pudding. — sjorford++ 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article cites correctly that Blad Puddling or Black Sausage was first served in Stornoway, Isle of Lewis. Correct me if im Wrong but thats part of Great Britain, so why on earth has it been renamed Blood Sausage? I dont see the logic in this, its rather like Football being called Soccer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.18.99 (talk • contribs) .
First (documented! I don't doubt blood sausages have been made throughout history) usage is not most common or generic usage. I think, in this case, that blood sausage is correct. --Eyrian 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other than a comment here, the article gives the impression that only the US calls it "Blood sausage". The greater proportion of people seem to name it "Black pudding", or so the article suggests. If the term "Blood sausage" is to remain as the title, why not provide a list of countries that call it that? If it can't be done, I suggest "Black pudding" as the better name. Mouse Nightshirt 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the previous comment, a variant is named "White pudding", so why not keep to the shared name? Mouse Nightshirt 18:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I have never heard it referred to as "blood sausage", only as Black Pudding (note capitals). --Panzer71 (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

eating it uncooked?[edit]

my fathers friend used to buy black pudding and just eat it uncooked, usually for breakfast when we went camping.. i always wondered is it okay to eat like this?!

if it were totally uncooked it would splash all over the plate, boiling the sausage makes the blood turn into the dark solid goodness we all know, its quite safe to eat like this and I have on numerous occasions, I even used to know a pub that serverd it like this as finger food along with dripping on bread! Brilliant! Hairybiddy 22:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption that something is safe because we have examples of people eating it is a false one. Examples including tasting un-cooked cake batter made with eggs, homemade mayonnaise and traditional egg nog or other beverages made with raw eggs. While in most cases, a person with a strong immune system won't feel any ill-affects, when were talking about sausage-like foods that contain ground up stuff from unspecified animals you don't only have to worry about disease, may face disgusting parasite's like Trichinella spiralis. Non appetit. -- House of Scandal 01:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black pudding is never eaten raw, at least not in the UK, it's already been cooked by the time you buy it. When frying, boiling or grilling it you're actually reheating an already cooked product. Antsnest 23rd July 2007

Here in Germany, blood pudding / blood sausage is normally eaten cold. It's solid, has a dark reddish color and contains pig blood, chunks of pig rind, and often one or more types of pig meat (tongue sometimes), along with spices etc. When cold, it has a bit of a chewy mouth feel to it. When heated, it turns into a mush (blood liquefies). The German Wikipedia article says it's one of the oldest known meat products, going way back to the ancient times. It was known in Greece and Rome. :) 91.49.112.153 (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, German Blutwurst is either smoked, cooked, cured or thoroughly dried (or both) before going to consumers. I personally like Kartoffelwurst best - mixed with small potatoe pieces it has a slightly spicy but nice taste and contains not too much fat. Cow tongue as an ingredient might sound weird, but its one of the finest meats of Offal and goes well with different finer variations of Blutwurst. All sort of sausages liquify more or less when heated, except the driest sorts of salamy. BR --Polentario (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons and Dragons... come on[edit]

Are you serious? I really don't think this article needs a section about a fictional species from Dungeons and Dragons, unless anyone objects I'm removing it Onlynone 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest leaving it. I found this article for the first time while looking for information on D&D Black Puddings. Specifically, I had been playing NetHack and wanted to know why my character lost vegan status after eating the corpse of one such beastie, as the phrase "black pudding" to refer to the food is not common where I live in Texas. It was reassuring to note that the game term had indeed originated from the name of the food. 24.250.128.75 06:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that the D&D black pudding is actually an animated version of the sausage? Ee, ecky thump! Totnesmartin 16:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its more like a giant amoeba (Hmmm...now I am curious to go look at that article). The name is, I assume, a humorous allusion to the food. House of Scandal 20:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs[edit]

I've got a photo of one I grilled the other day, which you can help yourself to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/iantindale/315195672/ I've got others from the same time, with different rotated views, if you want. Ian Tindale 17:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blood pancakes[edit]

I think Finnish blood pancakes should have their own article. They're the only blood food I can stand. Not that I think they're particularly yummy or anything, but as Finnish home food goes, they're alright. I tried some mustamakkara (blood sausage) in my civilian service training, and couldn't stand it. It was the only food in the entire training period I left uneaten. If it hadn't been free I'd have demanded my money back. JIP | Talk 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whip up your pancake article if you wish as long as you can find some references to cite about them. I don't think "They're the only blood food I can stand" is going to get your article the notability hurdle! (c: House of Scandal 19:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, maybe we should have a separate blood (pan)cake page and not one where totally different food are incorporated into it. I mean, sausages are obviously quite different from cakes/pancakes, even if they're all made of blood.--little Alex (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Black Dog[edit]

Whilst looking on the Yorskshire Dialect page I saw that Black Pudding is called Big Black Dog in Yorkshire, does this come from people feeding it to dogs as a remedy for low minerals and fat content, also I thought that in rural Yorkshire dogs are bred to protect, the taste of blood could help the dogs become "keen"

many thanks --Krummy2 10:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's not just because the word 'dog' is often used to refer to a sausage?
For example hot dog (a page which claims that "the term 'dog' has been used as a synonym for sausage since at least 1884"). --David Edgar 17:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black pudding is not the same as blood sausage[edit]

Black pudding should have an article of its own, not be redirected from "blood sausage", because black pudding is not a synonym or equivalent to blood sausage. It is a very specific type of blood sausage with oatmeal, used in Ireland and Britain mostly. It is not a generic name for blood sausage, which is how most Americans know it, unless they are of Irish descent and refer to this specific Irish (and British) specialty.

When I search for "blood sausage", I should be redirected to a "blood sausage" web page, not to a "black pudding" web page. When I search for "black pudding", it should go to either the "black pudding" page about the Irish/British specialty if there is such a page, or if not, to the generic "blood sausage" page. The current naming of the page is confusing and incorrect. It is like having an article titled "Colcannon" but talking about mashed potatoes. Well, almost, I am bad at analogies, but I hope you see what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimel31 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal[edit]

I appreciated the fact that since SMBC implied that the black pudding page links to the sexual intercourse page, they have in fact made it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.241.238 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia is not part of Scandinavia[edit]

Would be really cool if you could change that. I dunno how to do it. Shouldn´t it be in Eatern Europe or something? 80.217.76.16 (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to own sub-section. RashersTierney (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan and Mongolia should have their own subsections[edit]

When did Mongolia and Taiwan become part of the Chinese culture? Hong Kong is a special region or city in China, so that's fine. If you are going to include Taiwan and Mongolia as part of the Chinese cultures, you might as well include Tibet (cuz while technically they are a different race, was a country, but today as we speak they are under Chinese rule and jurisdiction), Philippines, Thai, and (South) Korea (cuz thousands of years ago, some or most of their ancestors did come from China). --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.58.8 (talk)

Dinuguan is NOT sausage or pudding[edit]

Why is dinuguan even mentioned here? The article is about blood sausage/pudding. The only similarity between dinuguan and blood sausage/pudding is that both dishes use blood. But it ends there. Dinuguan should be removed.

  • You're right, dinuguan and betamax are neither sausage nor pudding. Have made appropriate edits. --06:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)7ofnine (talk)

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: Moved, then to be split, with information specific to black pudding to be cut-and-pasted back over here. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Black pudding → Blood sausage – Blood sausage is the generic term. Black pudding is a specific type of blood sausage, which should also have its own article. Relisted Hot Stop 05:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Dforest (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Since its earliest incarnations, this article has been about blood sausages in general and not just black pudding, so the edit history should follow blood sausage. Create a new article for black pudding if a split is desired. It seems that the article was titled "blood sausage" for several years after it was created (and coexisted with a separate "blood pudding" article from 2005?) until this move and then bounced around a couple of times after that. See also here and here for previous discussions of this issue. —  AjaxSmack  07:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The separate "black pudding" article seems to have been deleted for the other article to take its title, and should still exist in deleted edits. Peter James (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the problem with this title is that the article content includes "pudding" without the sausage/casing. Just renaming the article is insufficient, since it will also need to be split into the casing/sausage type and non-casing type. That's why it's currently titled at "black pudding". 97.86.161.46 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A move does not preclude a split. However, this article as it stands now is 90%+ about blood sausage and ≤10% about blood pudding. A move would allow for the creation of a new article solely on blood pudding. —  AjaxSmack  00:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We already have Blood as food for non-sausage things, and the overlap between the two pages is inconsistent; there isn't even a {{Main}} in that article's subsection on blood sausage, and several of the links there go to the same page (this one). Renaming this page would be a good first step towards improving the organization of the information. Sneftel (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Both topics are notable enough to merit their own articles. Might be easier to spin-off Blood sausage. --Sander Säde 07:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The vast majority of the current article's content is not about blood pudding. The original title of this article seems to have been "blood sausage". Together, these merit a move, i.e. keeping the edit history with blood sausage and creating a new blood pudding article. —  AjaxSmack  04:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My impression was that black pudding is the generic term. Isn't it so? Bandy boy (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Evidently not according to several previous discussions in other sections above. —  AjaxSmack  04:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • When going throuh the discussions above, there seems to be some disagreement as to wether the generic term should be black pudding or blood sausage. Therefore I think a rename would not solve a problem, so my vote is to oppose. Bandy boy (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the move is good; if making a separate page we need to check the links to figure out what they want — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and then split. Clearly the original topic was blood sausage and for the sake of the edit history and WP:RETAIN the article should be moved back there. It also appears that blood pudding and some other content is not about a sausage product and that material should be split out into a new article. I think the blending of two somewhat related articles into one is part of the reason for the objections here. Though some objections are over what should be split out, so those are really supporting a split and simply objecting to what article should retain the edit history. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support revert to original name before it starting getting renamed without discussions. Then you can split the article. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree . Easier to understand. Mama meta modal (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
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.

New Zealand[edit]

"Black pudding is now part of the local cuisine of New Zealand"

As a New Zealander, I can honestly say "Black Pudding" is not a common thing here AT ALL. It is definitely not "local cuisine". Nobody I know has ever tried it, nobody talks about it, it is not mentioned in any popular media, it is never mentioned in regular conversation. In fact, I (at 35 years old) only came to this page to investigate what it was after reading about it on XKCD.

"Citation needed"? Some kind of reference, indicating that it's a common thing in society? Or remove the line entirely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.237.101 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question re Geographical Divisions[edit]

I'm rather wondering at the geographical divisions (specifically those listed under "The Americas").

1. There's no section for Canada, despite the fact that we do have blood sausages/black pudding here (the only reference to Canada is under Great Britain and Ireland).

2. What exactly is the definition being used for "Latin America"? Please clarify, because any definition I can think of (Central American countries, Central and South American countries where Spanish is the primary language, etc.) either some of the countries should be removed, or almost all the countries listed separately (save the US, Canada when it's added, and possibly some parts of the Caribbean) should be moved under there.

3. Um... Pananma, Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Mexico are not in Ecuador, and should not be listed under there. If you want to bundle together a bunch of countries, possibly identify them as "Central America" and "South America"? Don't put a bunch of them under the name of a country that they aren't. (Not to mention the fact that Mexico is in North America....)

Thanks. MiscGezork (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It evolved over time, through the actions of many different editors, and there's no particular rhyme or reason to it. "Regional variation"-style articles like this are often oddly organized. Feel free to rearrange/clean up. --Sneftel (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with Black pudding[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was do not merge ... The Bushranger One ping only 05:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A brief history of the two articles, as I understand it:

  • 2003: Blood sausage created.
  • 2003-2014: That article evolves into a discussion of blood sausage in general.
  • 2006: Article moved to Black pudding on the grounds that "All the countries that eat it call it 'Black Pudding'", which is false. At some point (apparently not recorded in the logs) it was moved back to Blood sausage, then to Black pudding again.
  • 2006-2014: Flame wars over semantics.
  • 2014: Article moved back to Blood sausage and information specific to black pudding duplicated on a new article using the title Black pudding. I say "duplicated" rather than "split off" because the information is not removed from Blood sausage.
  • 2014-present: Black pudding evolves into a discussion of blood sausage in general.

So it appears the editors of Black pudding haven't been able to find enough that's special about black pudding compared to other blood sausages to write an article on it without resorting to talk about other varieties of blood sausage, parochially lumping them all together as "black pudding". I think the evidence shows that a separate article is not warranted, and the title Black pudding should just redirect to the relevant section of Blood sausage. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge away, as long as "black pudding" redirects to the "blood sausage" page and that we don't lose any information in the process, including the one about the Spanish "morcilla" in the "black pudding" page. It's really a regional variation, recipe or an anglicism, that there are two different names for the same thing, it's "blood sausage" in the United States, for instance, and there's only the one "boudin noir" entry for French.

It's really a debate that Wikipedia should have: There are no reasons that a British or Irish user should be redirected to a "blood sausage" page when searching for "black pudding." It makes Wikipedia American-centric, and I don't think it's the spirit of this site. This user should probably see a "black pudding" page, maybe with a subtitle listing all the name variations in other English locales. Same for other entries in languages with multiple locales, a French speaker from Québec searching for wolverines should see a "carcajou" page first, not one titled from the European "glouton" name that also means not much to them. Until/unless this behavio(u)r is handled globally on Wikipedia, let's merge the page. Chimel31 (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speaking as an Englishman, I don't think "blood sausage" is American-centric. It is a neutral term that applies to many products (e.g. German Blutwurst), whereas "black pudding" refers to just the British kind. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason anyone wants this to happen - apart from being overly bureaucratic? There are two excellent articles so they should be left as-is. Torqueing (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that Black pudding is not an "excellent" article: it is ostensibly about black pudding, but it has devolved into a discussion of other types of blood sausage. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the "black pudding" page is not about other blood sausages anymore, apart from the paragraph about morcillas and some links that should be (re)moved, so there is also a case for keeping a more detailed page for such an iconic cultural item as black pudding. It is for instance a totally different recipe, texture and breakfast usage compared to other blood sausages such as "boudin noir." Such a page would allow much more information that can fit in a generic "blood sausage" page. For instance, links to the "official" recipes, other names like "blood pudding" or Celtic names, etc. The white pudding and the red pudding less common recipes exist only in reference to the black pudding: They all share the same ring diameter, the same texture and breakfast panfried usage. Since these two variants have their own pages, not a generic "pudding" or "breakfast sausage" page, it would look weird if black pudding had no home. Chimel31 (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimel31 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a merge. The articles should be left as is. There are a number of articles on specific blood sausages listed at Category:Blood sausages. No reason blood pudding should be merged while e.g. sundae (Korean food) is not. —  AjaxSmack  01:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Using the logic being displayed here, all international variants of "blood sausage" should be merged into one page or none at all. --Nozzer71 (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the other articles in Category:Blood sausages have fewer distinguishing details than black pudding (eg. Moronga, Beutelwurst, Gyurma). The same can be said of many of the articles in Category:Sausages, for example. While this isn't an absolute reason not to merge, it suggests to me that it doesn't support the claim that there's not enough special to warrant a separate article. Certainly I would only expect to see a merge if the other articles were also being merged. With a bit of effort, I have little doubt that the article could be easily expanded with further cultural, culinary and nutritional details specific to black pudding. Therefore I would oppose this merge. --David Edgar (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger. Looking at the other blood sausage articles (Moronga, Beutelwurst, Gyurma), I would say that they, too, do not need individual articles. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not organized around national lines. They should all be merged into one article. As for the "American-centric" argument, we have established policy on that on Wikipedia: we do not split articles about the same thing based simply on different names in different parts of the world. --Macrakis (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if we merged, wouldn't it open up the whole article name debate again? The history of the articles would suggest that people do see the two as having distinct features, identifiable by separate names, and that having two articles was what finally succeeded in removing a need for argument --David Edgar (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a tricky situation, since the prevalence of black pudding as "the blood sausage of record" in english-speaking countries has clearly led a number of editors to believe that "black pudding" is a generic name for "blood sausage". There's no easy fix for this misapprehension; as with a number of articles, the only real solution is continued attention to the article (and our best efforts not to get grumpy about mistakes). Merging would obviate this difficulty, but that's the tail wagging the dog. If there were a separate article on morcilla and it was as well fleshed-out as black pudding, nobody would want to merge it; I'd argue that, for the same reasons, black pudding shouldn't be merged either. --Sneftel (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per arguments from Sneftel and David Edgar...Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the reasons given above by Sneftel, AjaxSmack and David Edgar. Logic seems more bureaucratic than anything else. Pincrete (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blood_sausage&oldid=1206339687"