Cookbook talk:Table of Contents

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

(Redirected from Talk:Cookbook)
Jump to: navigation, search
Cookbook tasks that you can do! Foodlogo2.svg
Icon tools.svg Toolbox
Broom icon.svg Tasks

Crystal Clear action edit.png Write some of the most wanted Cookbook pages!

Archive
Archives
  1. September 2004 – October 2004
  2. November 2004 – May 2005
  3. May 2005 – June 2005
  4. July 2005 – August 2005
  5. August 2005 – July 2006
  6. July 2006 – June 2007

Contents

[edit] Deprecate Cookbook:Recipes and Cookbook:Ingredients

Shall we deprecate Cookbook:Recipes and Cookbook:Ingredients? Category:Recipes and Category:Ingredients are already much more complete. Kellen T 22:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. risk 17:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. These will have to have the links pointing to them updated. I've got a bot that has done such work on Wikipedia and it seems one doesn't need authorization to use bots here (though the use is discouraged) so I offer my help if needed. --Swift 21:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, most of the pages linking to the page were doing so from {{Cooknav}} and {{Recipe}}. I've been bold and updated these. --Swift 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I haven't had the focus to do this myself for the last few months. Kellen T 10:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I started updating the other pages (not template ones) and it turns out that a lot of these pages that seem to mimic categories exist. These are conveniently listed on Cookbook. Should these also be changed to categories? --Swift 05:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Mostly not. Or not yet at least. The categories were created (mostly by me) to be more complete references since they're easier to update and maintain. A lot of the other pages have information above and beyond just the recipe/ingredient list, or they have more fine grained subdivisions than the categories currently have (e.g. Cookbook:Dessert has nice subsections). In the future, I think we'll probably be using DynamicPageLists2 to include category output into a single readable page (like Cookbook:Dessert) without the extra work that hand maintaining lists brings. But DPL2's aren't enabled here as of yet. Kellen T 08:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, most of these don't really have any text content, but are simple lists (including Cookbook:Dessert). In the current form, I'd say the automatical listing would give categories the advantage. Category pages can still have content, though only at the top of the page, above the page list.
What is DynamicPageLists2? An extension? I checked Meta and MediaWiki.org, but without results. --Swift 20:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
They're a way to transclude category listings into normal pages. DPL(1)'s are currently enabled on wikibooks, but they don't allow alpha ordering, so it makes them sort of useless for the cookbook. If DPL2's were enabled, we would be able to create a page for Desserts which had appropriate subsections (you don't just want one big list of desserts, really) but do it dynamically from the categories. This would be better than just linking to the Desserts category. Kellen T 06:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
An example of DPL1's is on my scratch page User:Kellen/Scratch#DynamicPageList_test_.28chocolate_desserts.29: Kellen T 06:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic cuisines

With the Ethnic cuisines, is any attempt made to differentiate between "native" recipes and foreign versions? For example: Mexican vs. American Mexican. Thai vs. Americanized Thai. Indian vs. English Indian, etc. In some cases, there are major cuisine differences between the "native" food and the foreignized versions (such as in Chinese food). Jade Knight 05:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Some, but spotty. For example, there is Category:Southwestern recipes, which probably has more of the Americanised Mexican recipes. See also Cookbook:Tex-Mex cuisine and Cookbook:California cuisine. English Indian recipes will often be modified to more classic Indian dishes by passing editors, and I think at least one Americanised Thai recipe has been treated similarly. We could do much better, though, so ... ;-) Webaware talk 13:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be good to develope some sort of policy clarifying this—for example, American Thai food is great, but it shouldn't be confused for Authentic Thai. It might be good to have the two listed as two separate recipes, however, one American Thai, and one Thai. And make it a policy to specify whether a recipe is "foreignized" or native. Jade Knight 05:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to do that in a couple of instances here, but not in any formal way. Perhaps a policy on this would be good. Webaware talk 05:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think so. How would we go about coming up with one? Jade Knight 10:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It depends on what "Americanized" means. If that means a semi-poisonous ingredient available in a half dozen countries got replaced by a wholesome ingredient available in hundreds of countries, then the Americanized version is better. If the Americanized version is full of nasty commercial substitutions (ketchup in a lasagna!) then the Americanized version is probably junk. If the recipies are both decent and are quite distinct, then put the version less common in America on a separate page and link each page to the other. AlbertCahalan 05:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This last approach is exactly what Cookbook has done with a couple of Anglicised recipes, especially classic Italian dishes that are popular in the UK. Webaware talk 11:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"Authentic" is very much a matter of opinion. Not too long ago, a well-known Italian writer (not so well known that I remember his name), writing a book in English on Italian food was lambasted by the New York Times for writing "not all Italian grandmothers are good cooks". The Times stated derisively that 'good' was no proof of authenticity and "authetic' might not necessarily be well cooked. Mike Hayes (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contributors

Can anyone on Wikibooks alter recipes? Is there a policy for that? People have differences in taste—someone might treble garlic in a recipe, for example, or someone else might remove it entirely. Is there any policy covering amendations to recipes in that regard? (Sorry, I'm completely new to the Cookbooks section of Wikibooks, and I'm wondering how stuff like this is resolved.) Jade Knight 05:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

G'day Jade Knight, I don't believe we have a policy quite that strict. With traditional recipes, it's desirable to keep the recipe as authentic as possible, then note variations such as a personal preference for treble the garlic in the "Notes, tips and variations" section at the end of the recipe. For other recipes, I would tend to do much the same, unless I think that the recipe is plain wrong (e.g. 2 Tbs salt that probably ought to be 2 tsp). I have seen ingredients change dramatically in some recipes, and when that happens, I generally check similar recipes on other websites to see which version is the more popular before deciding whether to keep the new changes or move them to "Notes, tips and variations" (or reverting if necessary).
An interesting case on the point of traditional recipes is Cookbook:Spaghetti alla Carbonara. See its discussion page for the tussle over the ingredients and origins of this classic Roman recipe! Webaware talk 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
So, if I post a recipe, it's fair for me to watch over it and make sure it remains true the original, with variations listed as such? Jade Knight 05:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much! It is the nature of wikis that content is fair game for further editing by anyone at any time. However, silly vandalism aside, I find that most edits to recipes are for the better - e.g. sharpening the language a bit, adding personal variations at the end, or restoring the authentic ingredients to a traditional recipe. Not all though, so add your recipes to your watchlist if you care! Or just watch the recent changes frequently.
Be aware, however, that you don't own the recipes you contribute to Wikibooks - so don't be upset when someone does make a change. Be prepared to accept that a different version may be better, too. You never know, your "true original" may less true or original than you think! Webaware talk 06:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately, in cookery, there's no such thing as a real "original". However, what is best is such a subjective thing—even within a recipe. For example, I can't stand celery in tuna noodle casserole. Some people love it. Who is the ultimate arbiter on whether a change is an "improvement" to the recipe or not? This is the sort of thing I'm talking about—naming variations is one thing, cleaning up text is one thing, but someone deciding they have (arbitrarily) a better version of a recipe doesn't really jive. I understand reasoning between having two separate foreign and "native" versions of various recipes, but that's different than altering a recipe because someone else likes another version more… at the same time, though, we probably don't want to have 50 different chocolate chip cookie recipes here. So what do we do? Jade Knight 10:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say we try to keep a happy medium. That means accepting some changes, moving some to Notes, tips and variations, and rejecting some changes. But, once again, I must remind you of WB:OWN - once you make your contribution here, it's "ours", not "yours" or "mine". It is perfectly legitimate for someone to come along and amend a recipe if they think it is wrong or sub-optimal. I've seen changes made to recipes I've submitted, and had to make the choice between the three actions I mentioned.
If you are primarily concerned with preserving a recipe in the form you treasure most, and have it accessible to all on the Internet, then get a website - Wikibooks pages are not personal homepages. The Wikibooks Cookbook is primarily a textbook on preparing food, with recipes as a necessary part of that. We are very lucky to have had so many recipes contributed to it, but ultimately it isn't everyone's personal recipe book, it's a textbook, much like the other books here. Webaware talk 09:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you're missing my question. It's a matter of how the selection process is made—who is to determine what constitutes an improvement or not? I understand how changes are made at places like Wikipedia and Wikiversity, but cooking is an entirely different story. I'm trying to understand the method here. The more wikibooks grows, the more there are likely to arise conflicts between editors who both think they have the "right" cheese fondue recipe, etc. How are these resolved? Jade Knight 22:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the difference. If two contributors got into it like that over something in a Wikibook (as has happened with other books here in the past), there would have to be some mediation. We have an option not available to WP in that each can have a separate book, or in the case of Cookbook recipes, each can have a separate recipe. I'd hate to see that happen here, however, but some people just can't seem to handle working in a collaborative environment. Webaware talk 08:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of chocolate biscuit recipes...

Cookbook:Chocolate Chip Cookies seems silly to me. It currently has three actual recipes, and links to a few arbitrary external websites. I'd like to rip out the external links, and either remove the Hacked 'Neiman-Marcus' Cookies recipe or move it to a separate page on its own. Thoughts? Webaware talk 09:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the Cookbook policy on external links to recipes? Ideally, B:Cookbooks should aim to provide a few of the best chocolate chip cookie recipes imaginable. But how do we determine which recipes are the best? What makes the "Neiman-Marcus" cookies better or worse than the others? These are the sort of things I'm wondering about. Jade Knight 22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
External links are discouraged in general, as they often don't add much to a book. Books should be able to stand on their own without the need to make external references. Linking to recipes outside of the Cookbook itself isn't desirable, unless, for example, it is to an authoritative version of the recipe, or a more in-depth discussion about the history and procedure. Just linking to recipes isn't what the Cookbook is about. See also {{spam}}.
Having said that, there's no actual policy position on external links (although it has been suggested that there should be). Webaware talk 02:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cookbook Search Template

I've created a new template that can be used to search the cookbook using the standard wiki search (not google). The template is Template:Cookbook Search, and it looks like this:

(Template) (Discuss) Search the Cookbook:

We could even add a link to the google search into this template so that all the options are together for the user to use easily. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, thank you very much Mike Hayes (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a great idea. It may take some more edits to perfect it, but I do think the template belongs on the main cookbook page. Marcus2 14:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice, throw it up on the main cookbook page. Kellen T 16:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me, the google search looked ugly anyways. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 16:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Beaut, I like it! Much better, and more likely to help people find recipes and other Cookbook pages now. Webaware talk 05:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mergefrom Chai Book

Found this book while categorizing. Looks like a "how to make chai tea", which means to me it's "recipes for making a type of food", which is another way to say a "cookbook page". I think it should be merged to the cookbook. What do other people think? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We already have Cookbook:Chai Tea and Cookbook:Masala Chai, plus Cookbook:Yogi tea which is a type of chai. Will take a look at merging this when time avails itself (unless someone beats me to it - hint!) Webaware talk 00:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's really an old stub, if there is no home for it here let's just delete it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Randomized featured content

Hi all. I used to be pretty good at rotating the featured ingredients and recipes every couple of weeks or so. However, recently, I've done a poor job of it, and we've gone months with the same featured content. I think I might have found a solution.

I was doing some portal work over at the English Wikipedia, and I found discussions of randomizing the content of the portals, things like featured articles, pictures, etc. These aren't just random articles appearing, but a randomized choice from a list of hand picked content. They're using a template, w:Template:Random portal component, to accomplish this.

Now, our Table of Contents page is very much like a WP portal, with links to content modules (recipes, ingredients, equipment, cuisines, etc), and the featured item paragraphs at the top. I think if we transwikied the template and its documentation here, to give full credit to the authors, and then starting building up the subpages it needs, in a few days or weeks we'd be ready to switch over to a more dynamic TOC for the Cookbook. Anyone else think it's a good idea?

I can see other books using this as well. Imagine the Spanish book having a "Selected verb" and "Selected noun" on its main page or TOC, or the Using Firefox book having a "selected tip" area. Anyway, I'm getting off target. I just thought I'd run this up the flag pole, and see if anyone saluted. If we think it's a good idea, I can handle the transwikis, as I'm an admin on both projects.

Gentgeen (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure: it's better than the same content for months! Jade Knight (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drinks?

Is the cookbook only for food, or can we add drinks? 82.198.250.9 (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What kind of drink were you thinking? Majorly (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Bartending may be of interest --Herby talk thyme 14:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
To the IP, yes drinks can be included. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
For alcoholic drinks, Bartending is probably the best place, as Herbythyme suggests. Otherwise, the Cookbook already has many drinks recipes - see Category:Beverage recipes for a start. Webaware talk 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wok?

I heard you can cook just about anything in a Wok. The Wok page doesn't go into detail on using a Wok to replace random pieces of cookware in certain situations (steaming with a Wok, boiling, stirfry, searing, etc).

--Bluefoxicy (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You can cook just about anything in any heat-resistant receptacle the stops liquids falling out, for that matter. People tend to use the tools that they have to hand, but some tools are better at certain jobs than others. Woks are really good for stir-frying, whereas large stock pots are really good for boiling. You can still use a stock pot to stir-fry food and a wok for boiling, but there are often better tools at hand. Webaware talk 01:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Open Source Cookbook resuming activity

For those of us who remember the old, OLD comments made here about my Open Source Cookbook (see here for the original comment), I've finally gotten things in order to get back to work on the PDF'ed version of the book. I do still take submissions, and I've registered a new domain name to get things started, as well as set up a copy of MediaWiki over there for people. The cookbook's new home is http://www.oscookbook.org, and I'm currently working on getting everything set up web-wise. For the folks who have done so much wonderful work on the WikiBooks cookbook, I would love the opportunity to collaborate with those people and help improve the for-print version of the project I started so long ago! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mabalmer (talk • contribs) 2008-03-09T02:54:47.

G'day Matt, looks good. I'll keep tabs on it to see how it progresses, and might even add the odd recipe or two. cheers, Webaware talk 03:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements needed

The Cookbook appears to be in a bit of a mess and contributions (and I imagine, readers) seem to be rare these days. The cookbook should be one of the principle parts of Wikibooks yet it's lacking in many ways.

1. There are very few good quality recipes here - with illustrative pictures, clear instructions, nutritional information and good detail. 2. Too much focus on the main page is given to 'food' as opposed to recipes for things that people actually can make! When I visit a Cookbook I want to find recipes but (apart from the two featured at the top of the page) instead I have to follow about 2 or 3 links before I get to an actual recipe -> for example click 'British cuisines' then 'Bubble and Squeak'. Links to pages like 'healthy eating' should at least include examples of such dishes rather than a long essay about what healthy eating actually is. Maybe there should also be a 'random recipe' link prominently displayed (if there is then it's hard to find) 3. I've often edited the Cookbook but I've never used it for making a meal - there are far many better cooking websites on the Internet - see http://www.recipezaar.com/ and an example recipe http://www.recipezaar.com/87085 4. We should focus on the front page on recipes of the day, healthy dish of the day, a region of the week (Indian this week, Argentinian next week, etc.) The quoted website is much better although still lacking good photos and doesn't show metric measurements - but strangely the nutritional facts about the dish use metric which may explain why Americans are so obese if they are able to confuse two measuring systems in one page! 5. A link to recently added recipes could be interesting.

--ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Far too much attention is given to recipes in this book. Yes, we have lots of recipes that haven't been properly polished up to resemble those in a nice recipe book, but what this book really needs is greater attention to the following:
  • Ingredients - many pages are bare stubs, some have information that is wrong or dicey, few are good, and there aren't enough photographs of them
  • Equipment - again, lots of bare stubs, dicey information, plus US-centric stuff that leaves everyone else cold, and again, not enough photographs
  • Techniques - there is actually some pretty good information buried in some of the recipes, and some of our techniques pages are good, but there is much to be done here
  • Measurements - these pages need consolidation, standardisation, explanatory text, and conversion tables
  • Cuisines - this is where Wikibooks could really shine, with people from all parts of the world contributing, and some have - but Wikipedia has vastly better cuisine pages (which could be transwikied as a basis for our pages; some have)
Recipes are OK, but you can get recipes anywhere. The five points above are far more important, and more relevant for a textbook website (which is what Wikibooks is, if you recall). I hope to get back to it sometime, but have other priorities so am hoping that others will take up the challenge!
And I don't think the metric-vs-English measures issue is why Americans, and others, are getting fatter - blame affluenza and cheap carbohydrate-rich foods for that. Webaware talk 09:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that recipes receive too much attention. I would actually not be opposed to nuking every single recipe we have and trying to direct focus to the things which are more encyclopedic and static. As you said, recipes can be found everywhere, and there is essentially an infinite number of them. On the other hand, we have a relatively finite number of cooking techniques and utensils, and only so many ingredients (though still quite a few). Once a recipe is written, it can't really be improved in the same way as an encyclopedia article can, and they just sit there. Kellen T 15:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't the wiki cookbook put up on a separate wikipage, it's a good idea but the problem as I see it is that it is in faqt not as much a book as it is a database. So I would sugest that it'd be as already pointed out cleaned up and then launched on a separate wiki with the name of wikicook or something...
//Robert
I second what Robert said. My cooking skills are fairly rudimentary and I came here hoping to develop them. But there's no structure to this textbook - no idea where to begin, or how to progress through it. This book really needs a structure: an introduction and a clear, linear progression. --Irrevenant (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. What you have on this page is the index that really should go at the back of the book. The recipes should be interspersed into the textbook where they highlight particular techniques or tools. --Irrevenant (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No nukes, please

I really don't think deleting all the recipes would be a good idea. While they are in some sense static, there's no reason that this needs to be the case. For one thing, variants on a recipe could be entered in using subpages (so if I make a pancake recipe and find a slight variation I like better or need to substitute something, I can make that a variant and link it from the original recipe page).

I also think the recipes are useful in that they give examples of how the techniques and ingredients are used. However, to do this right it would be good to set up some DPL-readable templates on recipe pages (which is why I wandered onto this page in the first place: see section below). --SB_Johnny | PA! 10:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the opposite to most of the above comments. Recipes are the most important element of the Cookbook. People aren't interested in pages about 'forks', etc. --ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk 22:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not advocating the deletion of all the recipes (and I don't think Kellen is really either); I do think we seriously need to address the other aspects of the cookbook I raised above, but recipes are a necessary part of the book as they demonstrate the concepts that the other aspects should discuss. (But not the most important element - there are lots of recipes available on the Internet, but knowledge about cooking is much less available.)
For DPL, realise that DPLs in WikiMedia projects can't be sorted nicely; however, I've added a gadget that does sort them, if you want to take advantage of that. Webaware talk 10:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't seriously think people will nuke the recipes, but if I was dictator, I might. As content, I don't really find the recipes interesting; they're not really collaborative, they're widely available, and just about any junk can "qualify." One of the major things I was doing was formatting and categorizing all the existing recipes, and doing this revealed to me the deep crappiness of a large number of the recipes, which IMO would be best dealt with by deletion. The downside to deletion would be that people are probably motivated to write about techniques and ingredients because they're writing recipes, not the other way around. I agree with Xania that recipes are the "most important part of the Cookbook," but at this point I tend to think that having a book of cooking techniques, equipment, and ingredients is a much better fit for a wiki than a cookbook. The reason recipe sites have developed a lot of filtering techniques (search and ratings systems, in particular) is that they know they're going to get a large percentage of "bad" recipes and there has to be some way for their users to recognize these as such. We probably won't be able to have such software here on wikibooks; maybe they'll get something like that on the cooking wikia page, but wikimedia is too slow and wikibooks too low a priority for us to get any sexy features. Kellen T 11:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's partly a matter of perception. I've been working on the Bartending Guide, and have been looking to the Cookbook as a much better model than what the BG currently has. There is a lot of cross-book information that can and should be shared. For example, when talking about cocktail olives, it seems more logical to link to the cookbook's ingredients section on olives than to send people over to Wikipedia. I already see the reverse happening, where various alcohols (like Rum and Vodka) are linked to the BG from the Cookbook. The Bartending Guide is another Wikipedia "dumping ground", and for the same reasons: Wikipedia is not a cookbook. I think that particular rule is quite annoying, because it has caused several good Wikipedia articles to be gutted of useful information, and the books here be bloated with snippets of information that basically become orphaned (after all, the editors who were interested in it originally are back on Wikipedia).

Should the cookbook be "nuked" and all the recipes be tossed out? Of course not! That's just deletionism taken to the extreme. We have a starting point, and it just needs to be brought back up to the good standards that it once maintained. The WikiProject Food and Drink over at Wikipedia is a good starting place to find people at Wikipedia to help. It's currently a small group of people working to improve Wikipedia's F&D articles, but if we get some cross-wiki communications going, the English Wikipedia can become a helpful friend instead of just a "dumper" over here. That's what has happened with the Bartending Guide. Working with the Wikiproject Mixed Drinks on Wikipedia and the WikiProject Bartending here, the amount of "dumping" has sharply decreased. I'm active in both projects, and that has helped to reduce the "us vs. them" attitude that plagued the "bar recipes" of both projects. So, don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by dumping the cookbook's contents. Just ask for help with the dumping issue, so that things don't snowball here while working to fix things. I eventually want to help on the Cookbook, but realistically, it's going to be a long time before the BG is finished enough for me to branch out. I'm just hoping that there's still a Cookbook left to work on when I'm done. I also like the DLP suggestions below, and would love to incorporate some of those ideas into the Bartending Guide, but do not know how to do so. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk) 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There's not really any tension between the Cookbook and wikipedia anymore; all the recipes that were there have been moved and integrated. The problem, my problem anyway, is that I don't think that the recipes fit wikibooks' collaborative model, and as a result we have an ever-growing collection of very low quality recipes, which can't be improved in the same way as a wikipedia article. Kellen T 11:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using DPL for the cookbook

About 2 years ago, User:Kellen had led the charge for getting DynamicPageList enabled here on Wikibooks, at least in large part as an organizational tool for the cookbook. I don't think it ever really went anywhere here, but I've been making great use of it on Wikiversity making the Bloom Clock keys, and I think something similar (and simpler) could be done for the cookbook. What I have in mind is something like this:

  1. All recipe ingredient lists need to be categorized for the DPL to have something to grab onto. Probably the best way to do this would be to use a template that either just adds the categories, or perhaps adds categories at the same time as it organizes ingredients into a table (and creates links to the ingredients, etc.).
  2. Ingredient pages could then have a DPL list of all recipes using an ingredient.
  3. Finally, a simple template could be created for use in the User namespace for finding recipes that use 3 or 4 ingredients.

The third point is the one I'm most interested in: how nice would it be if you could go to the market and pick up a few things that look good, interesting, or that you're curious about, and then come back to Wikibooks and run a DPL script to find a list of recipes you could make. They could also be categorized and searched for by time it takes to cook, ease/difficulty, etc.

Part of my motivation is also a new clock on Wikiversity, the Fruit Clock, which among other things will help people keep track of when fruits come into season in their location (including things like squash and tomatoes as fruit, of course). Both the bloom clock and the fruit clock make links to the cookbook for the plants they discuss, so this might help get new contributors and readers as well. --SB_Johnny | PA! 10:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a lot of work categorizing each recipe by the "major ingredients," so you should be able to get basic, useful, lists from the DPLs. Whether they're sorted or not, and whether they'll contain recipes added in the year... and a half? ... since I finished categorizing the existing recipes is another matter. Kellen T 11:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] recipe book

I think that wikipedia members should be able to have their own recipe books. when you see a recipe you like you click a button that says "add to recipe book" and it adds it to your personal recipe book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.253.105.177 (talk • contribs) .

We have a tool on the way that will enable this, but it will generate a PDF that the user can then download. You can play with it over at en.labs.wikimedia.org if you like. They imported the Wikibooks database to en.labs a while back, so the cookbook there will be rather old. This feature is in development right now, so they very much want Wikibookians to play with it and report bugs/feedback. --Jomegat (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Great idea. Jade Knight (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested item

chocolate croissants. Yummy. =p) Like a croissant with a lump of gummy chocolate inside. Emesee (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You want w:Pain_au_chocolat. Kellen T 11:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
J'adore pain au chocolat. Jade Knight (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cool template

Wikibooks françaises has a really nice indexing template at fr:Livre_de_cuisine/Recettes_par_pays. Maybe someone with computer programming skills could transwiki it. Mike Hayes (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks nice, but there's no special wiki code there, so go ahead and copy it if you like it. Kellen T 12:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that's lovely. I particularly like the way they've dealt with the European cuisines; each of them is customized to the cuisine, and they have very attractice layouts. Jade Knight (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Tagalog Cookbook

Kindly add Pagluluto as new link in the main page. --121.97.111.177 (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity

Discussion has begun at Wikiversity on how best to launch Wikiversity's own Cooking/Culinary/Food and Drink school. What I'd like to see is collaboration and interaction between the Cookbook here and School there as much as possible. I think some of the recent discussions here for how to improve the Cookbook are great; I was just mentioning to User:Blast that it would be great to have thorough pages documenting ingredients, alternative names, how to identify them, preparation principles, how to select when buying, etc. The whole thorough bit. One of the big questions in my mind is: what goes on Wikibooks, and what on Wikiversity? I'd really appreciate brainstorming ideas anyone has on what Wikiversity can do to supplement the Cookbook. One idea we're planning on implimenting in the next few weeks is to create a Reference Desk of sorts, where people can come in and ask any ingredient- or cooking-related question and get a helpful answer. What else can we do? Jade Knight (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know if you are interested but...

Prior to finding this site I had already created a free to use website containing recipes and cooking hints and tips that I had collected from around the world. This is a completely free service that I was providing and I gain nothing (monetarily or otherwise) from anyone using it. If you wish to use any of the recipes or hints from my site, then please feel free to do so at [1]. (This is not meant as advertising my own site, but as a genuine offer for anyone to use it if they want to completely for free)

82.36.44.61 (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Wolf82.36.44.61 (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

By allowing us to use your materials, you are acknowledging that you are willing to license all of them by the GFDL. Do you realize this? (Also, welcome, and consider grabbing a username). Jade Knight (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Irc Channel

I note that there is an 'open-sauce' chatroom on freenode now :) If anyone is interested , I'll give further details :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicook?

I agree with what the user //Robert said; Wikibooks Cookbook is a book, in a way, but it acts more like a database of recipes than an actual book. I'm thinking of proposing Wikicook or Wikirecipes on Meta, but I'd like more opinions on the subject before I actually recommend it. I only see positive effects for having WikiCook as a new wiki, especially with the probability of greater attention.

I say the same think for Wikijunior, but I'd wait until it further matures, as was done with Wikiversity.

Theunixgeek (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Herbal Medicine

I was thinking about starting a herbal/natural/alternative medicine book. I was wondering whether it was a good idea to start it here, because many of the recipes are meals, but I don't know if skin creams or scent pillows are a good idea to include in this section.--Danthemango (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is exactly that you have in mind, but be careful that Wikibooks does not allow original research. A recipe that claims health benefits will need a reliable source. Generally, that blocks "alternative" medicine, but most recipes should be fine. --Swift (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess that makes sense. There are a lot of remedies that do have at least some scientific backing, so I'll make sure to cite as many sources as I can. And I understand that alternative medicine has it's limits, so I'll ensure the book makes that point very clear.--Danthemango (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Great! Welcome on board and happy editing. --Swift (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch oven cooking

The page at Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Recreation/Dutch Oven Cooking could be used as a starting point for including tools, techniques and recipes for Dutch oven cooking in Cookbook. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Print Version of the Cookbook

Guys, right now I am playing around with the idea of creating a print version of the cookbook. Here is what I have on my own workspace at the moment. What do you guys think of this idea? --Mattwj2002 (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Here's my suggestion

As a few people have pointed out, Cookbook is more like a recipe database than a cookbook. Or a cooking textbook, which is presumably what we're aiming at. I suggest using a structure something like this:

  • Introduction - What is cooking? (heat + food - also touch on non-heat-based food preparation) What are some of the principles of applying heat to food? What will we be covering in this book? Different culinary cultures around the world.
  • Part 0 - Preparation - what equipment is needed? Principles of mise-en-place.
  • Part 1 - Frying - an explanation of applying heat through conduction - pros and cons, gotchas (burnt outside, raw inside), food density issues etc.
    • Pan-frying - recipe #1: a simple omelette (+suggested variations). 3-4 progressively harder dishes.
  • etc. etc.

I'd get started on it myself but unfortunately, I actually came to this page to learn about this stuff, so I'm not really up to contributing in that way. :( But hopefully you get the idea.

--Irrevenant (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also things like how the different types of cooker (gas, electric, induction, microwave) compare and gotchas like the fact that food continues to cook after you take it out of the pan. Thanks. --Irrevenant (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
And what is this thing about 'seasonal cooking' - what is it and why do you do it? How do you go about combining flavours (sweet, sour, salty etc.). What herbs do you use when and why? What's an 'aromatic'? And so on. --Irrevenant (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Source info for heat control

I came across this interesting article on heat control and thought it might be useful to you guys: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/dining/02curi.html --Irrevenant (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] VFD of page Cookbook/Temp

Just an heads-up that a vfd is in process for the future of that page... --Panic (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Highdays and Holidays

Does the cookbook need an index for special events?

I'm looking for some suitable recipes for a Halloween podcast by Wiki Campus Radio.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] International Measurements

Would be nice to introduce some way of making it easy to compare measurements. Like for example centi-litre (cl) compared to a tablespoon. It's not my area of expertise but hopefully one of yours. 10:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vegan, but what about Raw Vegan

I saw cookbook, and right away searched for raw vegan. Unfortunately, it doesnt exist. I would love to see a raw vegan entry, even if it is empty initially. I think having it listed would inspire people to add. I know I would!

[edit] Thanks all of you for your contributions

This is wonderful! I would like to see a Macrobiotic section though. And yep, MORE pix!
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cookbook index of "National and Ethnic Cuisines"

In the "National and Ethnic Cuisines" section on the Cookbook frontpage most of the list is divided into continents or large regions except for "British Cuisine". Is there a reason for this? I'm British but British cuisine (as laughable as it is) doesn't deserve its own place while other more notable and popular cuisines have to be fished out through the regional links. I'd say that 'Italian', 'Chinese' and 'Indian' are the cuisines of most importance and possibly a few others like 'Mexican', 'Japanese', 'French' and 'Thai'. This may be English Wikipedia but even us English speakers aren't arrogant (or dumb) enough to claim that British, American, Australian, South African, Canadian or New Zealand cuisines is better than the others.--ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk 01:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stuffed turkey

I suggest include the recipe for stuffed turkey. Regards. --147.84.132.44 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Recipe search

I suggest create a tool to search only recipes (i.e. by name) instead of search all wikibooks. Regards. --147.84.132.44 (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That tool already exists. If you go to Cookbook:Table of Contents and look in the left panel, there is a section called "Toolbox". The first link in that section is called "Search this book" and that will do exactly what you have requested. --Jomegat (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook_talk:Table_of_Contents"