Talk:Cooking/Archive 1

message: OK, we're moving recipes over to wikibooks, so I'm wondering if the cooking techniques should go also?  Obviously the content is needed there, so if a recipe says to sauté a chopped onion for 5 minutes, they'll know what to do, but should it be copied or moved and deleted from here?  I prefer move and delete (also known as m:Transwiki). Gentgeen 17:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happier if it was copied only. The topic consists mainly of food and techniques, so if techniques were deleted, after copying elsewhere, then most of the reason for the entry would be gone, it would transform into something like 'food'. So I say leave the techniques. EVen import som e information so that this page isn't just a list of links, as at present. It needs developing, not demolishing. Imho
TonyClarke 00:34, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Move techniques to wikibooks?

message: * I am interested in starting a cooking wiki on Wikicities.  Anyone who is interested in being involved in this project can find more information on my Cooking Wiki subpage. -- Chris 10:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Cooking Wiki Project 

message: I believe that this article should have sections about the science behind cooking. I.e. what actually happens to the mixture of ingredients when heated or cooled or mixed or whatever. There are a myriad of issues here. De-naturing of proteins, caramelising of sugars, decomposition of complex sugars to simple sugars, production of gases by thermal decomposition and by yeasts, effects of alkalies and acids etc. etc. Whilst it is possible to trawl through the chemistry pages and slowly start to glean answers, it would so useful to be able to pick up all the threads here even if the detail was elsewhere. I will try and make a start but any help would be appreciated. Velela 16:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The science behind cooking 

message: The external links section of the page is getting a bit ridiculous.  A link or two to some recipe sites is fine, but if there's one or two, everybody with a recipe site will link theirs in too.  It's WAY out of hand.  I'm tempted to delete ALL the recipe-site links in that section, and leave a comment in the markup not to add any new ones.  I feel sure that there's some Wikipedia policy or other about not having pages which are huge lists of links.  Oh yeah, there is.  Most of the links look like linkspam anyway:  "An award-winning culinary source...", "Searchable database of over 100,000...".  Uh huh.  Comments? -- Wwagner 05:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After another look, those two portals I left in the list are really iffy.  I'll let somebody else make the call there. — Wwagner 05:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to "List of External Links to Recipe Sites"?

message: I moved a couple of external links to the discussion page.  The two pages seem to be "spammy" - One I'm having trouble with (Culinary Chef) - Please let me know if it should even be included here.
The second - Chefs Toque Culinaire - seems promising, but its Alexa ranking puts it around 4,800,000 (or probably less than 10 visitors per day).
(To put it in perspective, my two sites (listed above - theRecipenation.com and leftoverchef.com) are each ranked (1 month rankings) around 200,000 - which translates to about 1000 visitors per month)
That said, while I like Chefs Toque, I don't think it's quite prominent enough (yet) to be included on the main Cooking page.
-- Mkamensek (talk) -The LeftOverChef 14:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me.  I was having a big "maybe" attack when I nuked all the recipe sites from the External Links section the other week, and those two were pretty iffy.  You've got solid reasoning behind your removal, so I support your change 100%. — Wwagner 14:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I appreciate that.  I figure, if my sites - at 25k uniques per month - don't merit inclusion, then most others shouldn't either.  There are exceptions, of course, but it's a good heuristic for me. -- Mkamensek (talk) -The LeftOverChef 15:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved External Links 

message: The recent edit in favour of platic chopping boards when compared to wooden boards, was not borne out the European Union when, having first insisted on plastic boards in all commercial food preparation areas, then reversed its decision in favour of wood (especially Beech because experimentatl results showed much improved anti-bacterial effects when using wood. To date I have been unable to locate the appropriate refrences but I have marked the recent edit as requiring verification so that there can be consensus on this. Velela 13:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't hugely in favor of that bit, whoever added it, as it seems a little too specific for an extremely general topic like "cooking".  I don't think the Cooking article is really the best place for a discussion like that; might the Foodborne illness article (to which we're redirected from food safety) be a better place?  There are some brief bullet-points about basic food safety practices there, which could certainly be expanded.  Or perhaps this could be moved (also?) to the cutting board article, which already discusses these points in some detail?  That said, the results of the EU study you mention sound very interesting; definitely add them when you find them! — Wwagner 14:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I added a source for the statement, based on an article at the University of Arizona (cited at reluctantgourmet.com).  However, the Reluctant Gourmet article seems to flip-flop on whether wooden or plastic cutting boards are best.  Come to think of it, maybe the article should say that there is a debate between the relative safety of wooden versus plastic cutting boards, but that the most important part is to keep either one clean and sanitary.  --Elkman 03:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: May be worth investigation the work of Dean O. Cliver and Nese O. Ak at the University of Wisconsin which comes down strongly in favour of wood rather than plastic. I can locate many secondary sources for this work but no primary source. (cf. George Gallepp, Agricultural and Consumer Press Service, University of Wisconsin-Madison, as reported in Florida Veterinary Scene Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 5, Sept. 1994, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.) . See also  Velela 08:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food safety

message: I have removed the following text as it appears un-encyclopaedic and mostly poses questions rather than answers. I don't believe that the title is appropriate in any case. However, there are some interesting concepts mentioned in passing which probbaly deserve some mention in a much more structured way.
== Math of cooking ==
Not everyone can cook, but to survive we all have to eat. To be able to create any cort of recipe correctly your ingrediants have to have some sort of relastionship with each other. You have to follow recipes to the T, if you in fact want the same desired effect. If you don't add enough flour to a dough based recipe, then it will end up hard as stone. If you use to much, there will be no consistency in the shape. Having relastionships is both important in cooking and math. In math it is called a Ratio. If a recipe calls for 2 eggs and 4 cups of flour, then the ratio is 2 to 4.
Some examples of how math is used in the kitchen.
Knowing the right proportions (math) of baking powder, baking soda, and acid to used in quick breads. 
 
The chemistry of the browning action on meats (and other foods) is a function of the particular temperature at which browning takes place - temperature calculation is math. The length of time it takes to reach this temperature and how long it must be held is a math calculation.
 
How much flour and how much oil to combine to make a roux, and how much flour roux will it take to thicken a given amount of liquid?
You have no flour to thicken your gravy, how much cornstarch will it take to thicken the same amount of gravy?''
 
When making a Hollandaise sauce, why does it form an emulsion (math - how much oil will how many egg yolks hold in the emulsion), and why and how does lemon juice (an acid) effect the formation and stability of this emulsion, and what percentage of acid to use?
An egg yolk will hold about 4 ounces of oil (butter) in an emulsion. How long can this stay together at a particular temperature? How long can it safely be held at differing temperatures before potential bacteria growth can become dangerous?
Velela 09:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Math (sic) of cooking