Cookbook talk:Policy

Naming Conventions

Regarding titlecase: This runs counter to Wikipedia's naming convention. I think it is noteworthy that this titlecase convention was created, and enforced solely by, User:AlbertCahalan! (See also User talk:AlbertCahalan#Regarding really obscure names (on User talk:Geocachernemesis)). Since coming over from Wikipedia, I had been somewhat annoyed with the Cookbook's use of another convention, but I had assumed that it had been adopted through some sort of democratic process. Nope! It was imposed by fiat.

You can verify this easily by looking through the page histories. All calls for titlecase in Grunt Work, etc. were written by Albert, as are all those redirects. As far as I know, he never even made any argument for the change.

Since Grunt Work was created by me (Albert) with many items, pointing out that I wrote one particular item is misleading. You make it sound as if I just tacked that item onto the page. It's one of 9 items I added, and was one of the 7 original items. You could equally well point out that all calls to stop spammers and vandals were made by me. AlbertCahalan 20:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

What's the rationale behind Wikipedia's convention? Please read this: w:Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Article titles. In short, it makes linking easier. --- PurplePieman 23:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It was in use before I showed up, and rather common in fact. It was so common that I was rather jolted by finding a few pages without it, so naturally I fixed them to be consistent. It's funny that you should point out the Wikipedia rational, because it does not work here. That is, unless you suggest eliminating the "Cookbook:" prefix. AlbertCahalan 01:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It may work if the bug to create a proper "Cookbook" namespace on wikibooks is fixed. That aside, it's not that great a rationale for a cookbook anyway since you'll not generally be looking for something uber-specific (unlike an encyclopedia where the thing you want to look up has an obvious name). Perhaps we should try to find a consensus among contributors about what the case should be, apart from what it is already, and if that is the wikipedia case, we can go ahead and change everything. That is within our powers. Kellen ^T 17:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Albert and I have discussed this issue at length, but we couldn't agree. I'm like PurplePieman, because I came over to Wikibooks from Wikipedia, and I found it confusing that the Cookbook appeared to be using several different capitalisation rules.

As it is, Wikibook's naming policy doesn't propose any particular rules for capitalising book sub pages. But, I agree with Kellen, maybe we should try to come to a consensus (not just for the Cookbook, but for the whole of Wikibooks).

I agree with Wikibook's naming policy, in that we should use title caps or preferably title case for the titles of books. I would also prefer that we use Wikipedia's naming convention, of capitalising only the first letter and all proper nouns in the titles of sub pages of a book.

Note that simply by fully defining the capitalisation rules for Wikibooks, we are not saying that they need to be enforced immediately. We can do what has been done with the / and : page delimiters, they are recommended for all new Wikibooks, but it is highly recommended that existing books be changed to conform over time. I would be willing to invest my time to help the Cookbook conform, if I'm needed.

For the Cookbook, it is possible to argue that each sub page containing a recipe should also be titled in title case, because it is the title of the recipe (e.g., Toad in the Hole, and not Toad in the hole). I'm pretty neutral on that one, though it may cause confusion for some contributors. But, in my opinion, ingredients should never be in title case, only the proper nouns should be capitalised ( e.g., Brown sugar, and not Brown Sugar). What does everyone else think? Geo.^T 02:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I not strongly for or against title case, but I am against a wikibooks wide standard. Wikibooks is standardized in a different way from Wikipedia, that is by book and not wiki-wide. This allows for greater flexibility in determining the appropriate layout for a certain book. If a book decides to go with chapter titles like "Limits and Continuity" title case might look better, whereas chapter like "The repurcussions of the Bay-of-Pigs incident" might look better in regular case (or whatever it's called). However, we should really have that discussion elsewhere. On the case of the cookbook, I think recipe titles like "Vegetable Lasagne" look better in title case, whereas ingredient titles, like "Brown sugar" do look better in regular case (it's sugar, not Dickens). Then again, using that as a rule might lead to an awful lot of grey areas where page are both recipe and ingredient (like the recent Italian Pasta). risk 06:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the Cookbook will be getting it's own name space any time soon. So, it will continue to be part of Wikibooks. Wikibooks policy is currently being consolidated, and the aim seems to be to simplify existing policies and remove policies that differ needlessly from those of other Wikimedia projects. I understand why the Cookbook needs to differ from other books in certain ways, like using a certain layout template, etc. But being needlessly different from the rest of Wikibooks makes the jobs of administration more difficult, as they may need to learn a whole new set of guidelines for each book that they encountered in Wikibooks. When monitoring recent changes to Wikibooks, administrators have to be able to make quick decisions about what is correct, and what is not. I suppose that the main problem is that contributors tend to stick to their own books, and are not interested in Wikibooks as a whole. I would urge contributors to the Cookbook to make sure they contribute to the overall health of Wikibooks from time to time (you don't need to be an administrator to fight vandalism). Geo.^T 12:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think the namespace thing might happen soon. I'm not sure how to get a listing of the existing namespaces though (the "extended" ones, not the 0-15 standard ones). I like the idea of having per-book naming conventions, but this requires casual contributors to learn new rules for each book and requires dedicated contributors to form new rules for each book which seems rather haphazard. Kellen ^T 17:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully we get our own namespace soon, that would make things easier. As you say, rather haphazard, and there is always the danger that the contributors to the book can't agree.;) Geo.^T 01:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Some measurement templates

If you want to use these, or, even better, make them part of the main Cooking namespace, check these templates for shorthanding links to measurements. I made only the most basic ones. User:Jfingers88/Templates. Jfingers88 00:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Seasonality Templates

I added the seasonality templates, but they got rv'd. Why was that? (I don't mind so much, but I figured this was the place for them). risk 13:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ack sorry dude; that was very sloppy on my part. I saw in red: navigationasfdasdf and figured you'd accidentally submitted, but didn't do a close look at the rest. I've fixed it now. Sorry again. Kellen ^T 14:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Default sort key

I thought I'd bring up the new {{DEFAULTSORT:foo}} key. This new feature can be used when categorizing pages in the cookbook. In the example above, any page with the default sort key set to foo would appear in each category as if each category was pipe-tricked to sort by foo. For example:

[[Category:Chocolate recipes|Chocolate Chip Cookies]]

[[Category:Cookie recipes|Chocolate Chip Cookies]]

[[Category:Easy recipes|Chocolate Chip Cookies]]

could be replaced with:

{{DEFAULTSORT:Chocolate Chip Cookies}}

[[Category:Chocolate recipes]]

[[Category:Cookie recipes]]

[[Category:Easy recipes]]

Going forward, this could save some time for editors categorizing pages here. Gentgeen 08:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}} ? They should fix this on the category pages. Bleh. Kellen ^T 22:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Measurement

I just came to the Cookbook site looking for some recipes and found that the ones I read were, effectively, nearly useless because lots of measurements were given in "cups" without any attempt to disambiguate US or Imperial cups (the same problem as with pints). Sure 20% may not seem a large margin of error, but in a sense why bother giving measurements at all if they can't be given correctly. I'm guessing that most contributors are from the US so the measurements are _probably_ US cups, but could there be a convention about this please? Francis Davey (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the majority of the time "cups" will refer to the US version. Most of the other readers will contribute using metric units instead. Unfortunately there are few contributors to the Cookbook so I'm not sure that there will be much feedback. If you post a notice at Wikibooks:Reading room/Projects we could get more attention to the issue on this page. I have no problem with defining some standards on this page. There would be a problem in not knowing for sure what the original contributors were intending with their "cups". If there are metric units as well, we can probably work backwards from those to determine which "cup" is the actual one intended, then change the "cup" to the one defined in the standard we formulate on this page. – Adrignola discuss 22:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Most folks who contribute probably don't think much outside the system they've learned. Another possibility would be to convert wiki recipes to formula percentage (which would first require density calculations to assign missing weights to each volumetric ingredient), to analyze the recipe, but determining outliers (the ~20% error Francis Davey mentioned) would either require several similar recipes to compare against or knowledge of the correct range of values that would be typical. Figoni's Table 1.5, gives a formula "baker's percentage" for a date filling which has no flour at all (but that later seems to go into a baked product). Figoni also says, "For baked custard, each ingredient is expressed relative to the dairy ingredients---milk and cream." According to algebraic substitution, any recipe's ingredient or ingredient combinations could arbitrarily be assigned the 100% figure typically used for the "flour mass" in a baker's percentage. Consider a hypothetical fresh salsa formula, (no flour, just tomatoes, onions, cilantro, chili peppers, fresh garlic, lime juice, and salt) where the 100% ingredient substitution could be "chopped tomato mass = flour mass" and all other ingredient masses are handled in the normal baker's percentage way. Tomatoes are of varying weights, some large and some small, so once the tomatoes are chopped (there is no need for 1/2 a tomato remainder as might happen with a weight based formula), as the 100% ingredient, that weight (mass) is used to calculate the remaining ingredient weights, and the salsa is more consistent from batch to batch whether made from large tomatoes or smaller ones. Wiki cookbooks could be on the leading edge of cookbook publishing if all recipe's ingredients eventually had one column for formula percentage, a separate second column for weight measure, and a third for volumetric measure. Volume measurements are good for speed, weights are good for accuracy, and baker's and formula percentages are good for comparison and analysis, recipe design, and scaling ingredient weights for either slightly or largely different batch sizes. It's just something to muse. Gzuufy (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Goodness, I can tell you've put a lot of thought into that. I can really only invite you to dive in as I don't do much cooking from recipes, much less think I'd be able to get a handle on that system you describe. – Adrignola discuss 19:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The analysis is somewhat time consuming, but it's not that hard. Anyway, I took the plunge and decided to analyze one recipe. The analysis is currently posted on my talk page section titled by the cookbook's recipe name, and seems to support Frances Davey's observation regarding cup variances, particularly with regard to flour weight in a bread recipe. When flour weight can be measured accurately, the spreadsheet model shows that variances from other ingredients that lack other severe instructional ambiguities decreases to less than 1% (though I haven't illustrated this point in the analysis). This is why folks like myself cannot use volume-based recipes, and I'm in the U.S. where they are endemic. I'd be interested in any comments anyone might have regarding the analysis, particularly whether it would be of any value posted on the recipe page it was derived from, along with any changes it may need. Gzuufy (discuss • contribs) 06:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the recipe template documentation:

"*/ Quantities should be listed in whichever system (imperial or metric) the recipe was created in, with the other system's equivalent values listed immediately after, in "()". This lets users know which units are "original" and which are estimated conversions. Always provide volume measurements. In some countries, kitchens are simply not equipped to measure by mass or weight. (yes, they lack a balance or scale) Do not specify the size of normal chicken eggs; "Large" in the USA is similar to "size M" (not size L) in the EU, and other countries will surely have their own ideas as well. /*"

So, I think it's safe to assume that if you see a "cup", it's imperial. My question is about giving equivalents. I can easily use a metric calculator to convert volumes, but what do I do with teaspoons and tablespoons?—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 07:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I just read up on conversions on the Grunt work page and now realize there's a difference between imperial and what is used in the U.S. My bad, and my apologies. I will endeavor to include all my recipes in the "American recipes" category to indicate that they are using U.S. measurements. Thanks.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 07:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't be listed in Category:Recipes with images

Because of the usage of {{Recipe summary}}, this page is listed in Category:Recipes with images, which it should not be. —Kri (discuss • contribs) 13:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't be classified as a recipe

This page is classified as a recipe, which it should not be. —Kri (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Should probably list Module:Temperature as being policy

Module:Temperature is now using sane systems to accomplish its purpose, the only thing left is to start using it in recipes!

Please consider adding it to this page, so contributors are aware of it and properly encouraged to use it. --MarkTraceur (discuss • contribs) 23:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Would be nice to explain copyright issues.

The page on the US Copyright Office's website that describes Recipes basically says that the recipes themselves are not copyrightable, just how they are expressed. This is something I didn't know before and would be nice to express on the Policy page for others who came looking for what types of permissions are required to bring recipes here. Zellfaze (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This page and this page also get into the details. Zellfaze (discuss • contribs) 13:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I would love this as well, the big scary "Did you find your recipe on the internet? IT WILL BE DELETED" message is not at all helpful. As @Zellfaze says, the ingredients and steps to making a recipe are not copyrightable, a fact which has been upheld by legal precedent. Milimetric (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

May I fix missing "title" parameters, or are they correct/intended as is?

Hi~ On some of the {{featured recipe}} and {{featured ingredient}} templates, the images link to their respective "File:" pages, instead of their "Cookbook:". However, the templates already have "Image credit" links to "File:". Also, their alt text is "link=Cookbook:{{{title}}}" code instead of "Cookbook:Some recipe". I think the reason for all these is that they're missing the "title" parameter.

Examples:

Template:Featured_recipe/1-2-3-4_Cake <-- Missing "title": image link is to the image "File:" and alt text is template code

Template:Featured_recipe/Tarbes_Salad <-- Has "title": image link is to the cookbook named

Again, same for ingredient:

Template:Featured_ingredient/Rice <-- Missing "title"

Template:Featured_ingredient/Tomato <-- Has "title"

• If it's okay, may I add the missing "title" parameter to the affected templates?
• Or, are they intended to be like that?

Thanks for reading~ Zeniff (discuss • contribs) 07:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I changed the affected pages by adding "|title=<name of Cookbook>" to each. I hope that's okay..? o.o Zeniff (discuss • contribs) 06:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@ZeniffMartineau: Looking at the template implementations, it appears both of them are designed with title as a required parameter (the template markup appears to assume parameter title will always be provided); so I doubt you're doing any harm by providing it.

(Side note: The templates have, as you will have noticed, disappointingly no documentation about how to use the template; in place of documentation they have what I'd describe as a "pretend assistant", something that makes believe it's a way to automatically create a featured recipe/ingredient but can't really deliver on the promise because it uses the inadequate facilities that were provided by the wiki software many years ago. The imho-obvious misdesign of those features was part of the point of wikidialog; these will be a natural choice of things to upgrade with real assistance using wikidialog at some point in future; which will inevitably take some time, but it's coming.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know:) Is there a preferred way to provide documentation? I was thinking I might add just a bit to them, or link to the "blank" example templates. Also, I can't find any "HelpDesign" or "wikidialog" pages on any Wiki projects..:( Maybe the name changed? Zeniff (discuss • contribs) 21:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@ZeniffMartineau: Sorry, that was a bizarre typo. The page is Help:Dialog rather than HelpDesign (fixed the link above). There is also a copy of that page here on en.wb, Help:Dialog, but I linked to the one on en.wn because on en.wn the wikidialog gadget is selected by default for all users (even IPs), whereas here on en.wb I haven't switched it to default status yet, so the dialog elements on the help page here don't appear unless you select the wikidialog gadget on your Special:Preferences.

The usual way to do documentation is to put at the bottom of the template {{documentation}} That facilitates creating a separate page to contain the documentation. You can see an example at, say, {{BookCat}}. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you:D That clears up my confusion! Looks complicated, but I'll read it right now and I'll try to learn from/follow the examples. Thank you for the tips!!:) Zeniff (discuss • contribs) 03:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Cookbook recipe formatting name change from "procedure" to "method"

Most cook books today would not format the steps to create something under a heading of "procedure", but most would call it their methods or steps. As a stylistic choice, procedure is a very offical sounding word and ridged, whereas cooking has an artistic element to it and varies from person to person.

I think "method" as a name change would be a good balance between outlining to readers the steps of a recipe, whilst not sounding like they are about to start the launch sequence of a rocket. Jamzze (discuss • contribs) 19:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I was not here when the guidelines were created, so I unfortunately can't speak to the reasoning behind it. I also couldn't see anything helpful in Cookbook talk:Policy/Recipe template. @Xania I know you've been here for a while and have put a lot of work into the cookbook—do you know why "procedure" was chosen over an alternative like "method"? -- Nostriker (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Any legacy info would be grand. Also open to what its name should be, I am just not a fan of "procedure".

Flicking through some of my cookbooks, a lot of the ones that use sub-headings have phrasing like "To Cook", "Method", and "Instructions" Jamzze (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Cookbook recipe formatting adding "equipment" as a section

I think another section "equipment" should be added to recipe formatting policy to make it easier for readers to know what they need before tackling the recipe. E.g. it could go Ingredients, equipment, etc. as sections. Jamzze (discuss • contribs) 20:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that's fair. It's useful to know if a recipe requires a mixer, etc. Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 20:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Including alcoholic beverages

Suggestion - allowing alcoholic beverage recipes

Hey, I think alcoholic beverage recipes should be included within the Cookbook, as the Cookbook beverage page currently outlines they are not allowed. From historical cookbooks to modern cookbooks, most of them have sections on preparing beverages, both non-alcoholic and alcoholic.

Reasoning

• I have seen it recommended that recipes be added to Bartending, however that book has limited engagement with - meaning recipes might be lost/ quality not upkept and it adds additional effort to the reader to go there from this book.
• As well, I think it is within scope of the Cookbook to include alcoholic beverages as recipes, for example many recipes here include food intended for individual enjoyment and parities. Things like a single Gin and Tonic or a party Punch Bowl would work well with these recipes and be apt to include and linked to them.
• I think what would be out of scope would be things like bartender etiquette, history of mixology, and large, industrial-scale recipes for drinks which can remain in the remit of Bartending, Brewing, Wine Making, etc.

• Edit: having looked through the Beverage recipes category there are already a number of alcoholic drink recipes there. I propose then to remove the wording on Cookbook:Beverages intro and allow alcoholic beverages in.

Jamzze (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to include alcoholic beverages like cocktails etc. since other beverages are allowed in the cookbook. Moreover, various alcoholic beverages are used in cooking, and they already exist within the cookbook. I would recommend making sure the recipes are all categorized as beverages! -- Nostriker (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Nostriker - I will edit this in and add the details into the policy.

Through my work reorganising the beverage categories, I have added a alcoholic beverage recipe cat, so this can be used to tag them. Jamzze (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)