Talk:Figgy pudding

Link to its other name?

Please could someone create a redirect such that if I search for Piggy-Pudding I will go to this article? this was the name I heard for it a few times, so it needs to be searchable that way too...

what is it?

Could someone add a sentence or two describing what figgy pudding actually is? I realize that one might be able to guess from the recipe, but what form is it in? I'm not British, but I'm pretty sure that pudding in this context doesn't necessarily mean the same stuff that's in Jello pudding packs.

I think the closest equivalent might be what an American would call a cobbler. In this case made with apples and figs, I think what they call pudding in the recipe here is a bread mixture. Fan-1967 04:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've tried to put a brief paragraph to give a basic description of what Figgy-pudding is, please could people have a look at it ([[User talk: Skostarnov|talk]])

There is still nothing in the text that says what it is except that it is like something else that the reader won't necessarily know. This is an unnecessary forced link job. Kdammers (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a major problem in the first sentence. It states baldly that "figgy pudding is made with figs" and refers the reader to an article which states unequivocally that it is "a treat that neither contains figs, nor is a pudding in the American sense." I don't know if an article from Smithsonian.com is an acceptable source but it does seem authoritative and it directly contradicts what the Wikipedia article states. This is my first time editing and I am hesitant to make the change in the actual article, but it is very clear that the article is factually incorrect. I'll take the risk and do it. ````David Ingerson

Well, I guess I'll have to figure out how to do it. ````David Ingerson — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Ingerson (talk • contribs) 08:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this. The first sentence was suffering from some unconstructive edits made some time ago. I've tried to clean it up a bit. The Smithsonian mag reference was rather confusing in its insistence that no figs were ever harmed in the making of the dish, because many of the other sources in the article show that it was in fact often made from figs, up to and including the 19th century. That reference has been moved a little further down, to a statement that it actually supports. You should, of course, feel free to make any other improvements to the article. --bonadea contributions talk 17:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Why has all reference to figgy pudding as a raisin pudding been erased, when in modern (19th-20th C usage) it exclusively has meant a raisin pudding, raisins indeed being dialectally known as 'figs' ?(Sources: OED figgy, adj. Pronunciation: /ˈfɪɡi/ Frequency (in current use): Etymology: from fig n.1 + -y suffix1.

2. Made with figs, i.e. raisins; see fig n.1 5.

1846 ‘J. Treenoodle’ Specimens Cornish Provinc. Dial. 53 A thoomping figgy pudden. 1867 W. H. Smyth & E. Belcher Sailor's Word-bk. Figgie-dowdie, a west~country pudding, made with raisins, and much in vogue at sea among the Cornish and Devon men.

fig 5. dialect. A raisin.

1787 F. Grose Provinc. Gloss. Figs, raisins, W. 1880 M. A. Courtney W. Cornwall Words in M. A. Courtney & T. Q. Couch Gloss. Words Cornwall 1883 W. H. Cope Gloss. Hampshire Words JESL2 (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

picture

Very blurry picture. I can't properly see what it looks right right now.

I think it may be a good idea if someone could find a more presentable picture for figgy pudding than the current gross mess ( File:Figgy_Pudding_with_flaming_brandy.jpg ) - 72.214.180.44 (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming it is the same picture now as it was in 2015 when the above user made this suggestion... it is now 2022 and the picture on this wikipedia page looks like the figgy pudding is on fire with blue flames! JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Move to merge

Given that this article refers to a holiday dessert, which is similar in most ways to plum pudding (which was moved itself to the article Christmas pudding, and given that this article erroneously cites Dickens' A Christmas Carol as a reference point (that Christmas pudding was a plum pudding), it seems this subject would be better served (no pun intended) as part of the larger Christmas pudding article. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering how the average user would feel about this merge. I'm sure something like 100% of readers come to this page looking for clarification on the lyrics of We Wish You a Merry Christmas. How is such a reader better served by being sent to the larger page (Christmas Pudding) as opposed to its own dedicated page? -Achowat (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Finding it wouldn't be a problem given that, if merged, a cursory Wikipedia search would lead the reader to the article. Plum pudding, being the more commonly known pudding of the two (which in the UK is a holiday tradition akin to fruitcake here in the States), was itself moved to 'Christmas pudding' due to its common ground with other similar puddings. Essentially, figgy pudding is (by association at the very least) a type of Christmas pudding. It would be a more economic search (not to mention a logical association) for the reader to have one comprehensive article with subheadings than it is to have one medium sized article and one stub (again, the Christmas pudding article is already the more substantial of the two articles). Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Second the move to merge. Sterlingjones (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This pudding didn't exist

The sources emphasise that figgy pudding was a particular dialect word for Christmas pudding. The only source that disagrees is a telegraph short piece which refers to Mrs Beeton who never had any recipe for a figgy pudding just figs in 1 variant of a Christmas pudding. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• The page has been rewritten and it's clear that, not only did the pudding exist, but that there are a variety of recipes dating back many centuries. There's a proposal to merge this into common fig#Food but I oppose that suggestion for reasons including

1. The proposed target page is already large (over 43K) and mainly focussed on the plant, Ficus carica.
2. The pudding has a variety of ingredients besides figs and some recipes don't contain figs at all
3. There's plenty of material to work on now and and there's more to be done here, in the current location.

Andrew D. (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

A bad idea. It is likely that the article will swing between fig and raisin pudding, given that from the eighteenth century at least figgy pudding has meant raisin pudding (fig being a dialectal word for raisin, so figgy meaning dialectal – see OED etc.) JESL2 (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that merging it seems like a bad idea – it's a brief but well sourced article that passes WP:GNG and is much easier to read here separately than merged into Fig, where it's likely just to be reduced to a few sentences. ‑‑Yodin^T 15:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Pork?

The new intro specifies pork, which isn't mentioned in the rest of the article? John Womble (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)