Cookbook talk:Snickerdoodle

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

This is just a recipe, which wikipedia purports not to be for!!

You're right about this article as it stands. I believe it has potential for expansion into an encyclopedia article (as soon as I can find some references), but in its current state there's not much to it. I would just ignore it as harmless until it is expanded, but if you really think it should be deleted you can nominate it at WP:VFD. -Aranel ("Sarah") 12:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

why would an encylopedia article for a "major" cookie like the snickerdoodle not include a recipe? Wouldn't that be like an article on water that forgot to mention H2O? While wikipedia doesn't want to get filled up with silly recipes, a recipe serving as a definition of an important cultural icon should be acceptable.

[edit] contradiction?

How do we know it's a "creation of nineteenth century New England," if the article then goes on to say that "An interesting side of the snickerdoodle’s history is that the recipe for the cookies cannot be found in any 18th-19th century American cookbook." Joyous | Talk 02:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The recipe will be removed

Per Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information point 4, recipes are not appropriate for a wikipedia article. The recipe will be transwikied to wikibooks cookbook, at which point it will be removed from this article. --Xyzzyplugh 14:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey all you Snickerdoodle fans

Ya'll should just shut shuttin up whilst talkin' bout the infamous Snicky McDoodle McCookie