Talk:Recipe: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Todd Coles
imported>Hayford Peirce
(→‎What do you think..: I think it's probably an excellent idea)
Line 30: Line 30:


..about splitting the alphabetical list into two lists - one done alphabetically on recipe name, and a separate one that's broken into subcategories (Cocktails, Seafood, Pork, etc)? --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 15:17, 16 March 2008 (CDT)
..about splitting the alphabetical list into two lists - one done alphabetically on recipe name, and a separate one that's broken into subcategories (Cocktails, Seafood, Pork, etc)? --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 15:17, 16 March 2008 (CDT)
:I think that that is probably an excellent idea. I had considered that earlier but it seemed like too much to do before there was enough material to look at and to get an idea of how things were shaping up. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:16, 16 March 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 16:16, 16 March 2008

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A set of instructions for cooking a particular dish of food. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Food Science and Hobbies [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

masochist?

That's fer sure! I'll see tomorrow if I can put any of my own fairly dogmatic ideas into it.... Hayford Peirce 21:46, 2 March 2008 (CST)

Hayford, do Brits really call recipes "receipts"? I've never heard that before. --Larry Sanger 15:35, 3 March 2008 (CST)

I spent 8 months in London in 1968 and never heard it. I have a couple of British "cookery" books and I'm pretty sure that they don't either. It wuz Aleta who wrote the article -- maybe it's a Digger thing.... Hayford Peirce 16:30, 3 March 2008 (CST)
Maybe, but my Oxford Dictionary just says it's 'arch.' Ro Thorpe 16:36, 3 March 2008 (CST)
Was that "archaic", Ro, or "archetypal"? ;)
Haven't you read any British literature, Sanger? And the rest of you? P)
You can put "formerly" if you want, because I haven't lived in England in...mumble...mumble...years, but older folks of a certain class always said "receipt" back in the day.
AND, FYI, I just checked my American dictionary. Definition no. 1 for 'receipt'=(drum roll) "RECIPE"!
Aleta Curry 20:33, 3 March 2008 (CST)
Even a geezer can learn new tricks -- I just checked the only 2 dictionaries I could reach (I'm rebuilding my office and my reference books are scattered around 4 rooms in hard-to-access places) and, to my astonishment, receipt actually means...RECIPE! Even the really majestrial M-W International Unabridged of 1932, second edition, says so. And that's the only book in the world that I actually trust.... So I'll do a rewrite. Mille pardons, chere demoiselle! Hayford Peirce 21:05, 3 March 2008 (CST)
[aside] Anyone who'll call me a 'demoiselle' at this advanced stage of the game gets mille pardons and just about anthing else he wants!
My wife and I went to a (lady) friend's house for New Year's eggnog once and the friend said to me, knowing my birthday was coming up soon, "What do you want for your birthday? I'll give you anything you want. Except *that*!" she added after a moment's thought. "But that's what I *want*!" I said. Hehe.... But ya can't win 'em all.... Hayford Peirce 10:14, 16 March 2008 (CDT)
Can I hire you a cleaning lady to destroy those? --Robert W King 21:13, 3 March 2008 (CST)

Perhaps a reference to receipt may be included? The stub receipt doesn't have any citations either! Supten Sarbadhikari 22:15, 3 March 2008 (CST)

Recipe listing finally underway

Has there been any discussion on how this will be organised? Should recipes be subpages of the article (that is not the case right now)? The reason I wonder this is that there are often regional variations on the same dish? Chris Day (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

There's been a gazillion words of discussion about this -- BUT scattered all over the place in what seems to me like a dozen different places. That's why I gave up waiting for anything to be Engraved In Stone and just went ahead and did something. It may be wrong, but at least it's a start. Maybe now that there's something concrete to look at, some of the other people (who have actually shown considerable interest in the project) will get involved again.... Hayford Peirce 18:16, 15 March 2008 (CDT)
I was not suggesting it was wrong just wondered where to chime-in. I guess if I search the forums for recipe i'll find a few of the twelve ;) Chris Day (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2008 (CDT)
No, no, I didn't take it that way -- I didn't express myself clearly. I was just waiting for something to get done. Let's see, we've discussed this at CZ:Recipes and in a *lot* of the catalog areas, I really forget where -- a lot of it was on a sort of ad hoc basis, with the talk petering out in one place and then popping up a month or so later somewhere else. There has also been at least one Proposal, lemme see if I can find it.... Yup, http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Proposals/Recipes_Subpage_and_Accompanying_Usage_Policy#Concrete_Steps_Ahead
I guess I just got tired of waiting. In any case, anything I've done can easily be undone if people come up with a better scheme.... Hayford Peirce 18:49, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

What do you think..

..about splitting the alphabetical list into two lists - one done alphabetically on recipe name, and a separate one that's broken into subcategories (Cocktails, Seafood, Pork, etc)? --Todd Coles 15:17, 16 March 2008 (CDT)

I think that that is probably an excellent idea. I had considered that earlier but it seemed like too much to do before there was enough material to look at and to get an idea of how things were shaping up. Hayford Peirce 17:16, 16 March 2008 (CDT)