Cookbook talk:Policy/Recipe template

>>Unnamed sections as of July 2012<<

I think this page should be moved out of the main namespace, but am unsure if it should go to Cookbook: or Wikibooks:. It's definatly a cookbook item, but it's not intended to be seen by the regular user, only by contributers. Any opinions? Gentgeen 02:02, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Kellen Jan 7 (how do i do a timestamp?!) 2005

---

I think it would be fine to have some categorical information to each recipe (and ingredient) so that a special search can be applied. I'm thinking about things like seasonal and geographical information or classification like vegetarian, vegan and so on. Even better would be to also have things like preparation time and calories available as search terms. A visitor could then for example search for vegetarian italian dishes under 30 min prep. or similar. I think for that to work we would need a specially programmed search module and I have no clue about the MediaWiki workings in that respect... The jewel on the crown would be if you can search by ingredients: 'hmm.. I have carrots, potatoes and chicken [and hopefully some other basic ingredients]. what will I have tonight?' Any Ideas about that? --Elkmann 23:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not sure about the search idea (which I think would be good, but I'm not a developer), but if you click the "what links here" link on the side of the page from Cookbook:Carrot you end up at this page which lists all the recipes that link back to the carrot page, which I think is an important reason to wikify each ingredient. Gentgeen 20:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Search needs to be low-maintenence. Tagging recipes is troublesome, especially if the absense of a tag implies a meaning which is opposite to having the tag. (are all recipes not tagged as vegan known to be non-vegan, or should they appear as unknowns at the bottom of a search for vegan stuff?) I see two ways to make searching work.

1. Make it Google-like, with a synonym database generated from the redirects.
2. Make it like a music referral service. As you rate recipes, recipes become sorted according to the ratings of people with similar taste in food. This was developed for music so that a heavy metal fan would not get suggestions for country music, etc. The idea should work well for recipes.

AlbertCahalan 01:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I put in a request at bugzilla that the new search function in use at wikipedia be turned on for the sister projects. If you want the developers to listen to us, please vote here. Gentgeen 05:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Why are optional ingredients to be listed separately from the main list? It seems as if variations in cooking method or main ingredients (say, oranges for lemons) would make sense as a separate section at the end, but that optional ingredients (say coconut on top of a cake) should be listed in the main ingredients list. Opinions? Kellen Jan 7 2005

Agreed. In some cases, I mark an ingredient as "(optional)". In other cases, I list optional ingredients in a second list immediately after the first list. I don't think it is good to get terribly formal about this sort of thing; the proper answer really depends on the recipe. Some recipes do well with multiple ingredient lists, breaking things up as "filling" and "crust" or similar. AlbertCahalan 06:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If its only one or two I tend to simply use "(optional)" but for more than that I add a line break and start a ne w list marked optional directly below the first list. While it is useful to have multiple lists they should all be together for clarity. If you're reading a recipe to confirm which ingredients you'll need you need to have them all together so that you don't accidentally miss one. Introducing ingrediants into the text of a recipe that aren't invited in the main Ingredients section is a major pet peeve for me. Grimm 23:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

people put recipes in the template!

Twice now, people have put recipes into the template. Perhaps they ought to be saved elsewhere:

03:17, 25 Apr 2005
04:51, 9 Apr 2005

For the future though... how shall we clue people in?

• I've added a note about it to the top. It might be as well to add it to the end as well. Grimm

One might want to fish those recipes out of the page history. AlbertCahalan 05:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

04:51,  9 Apr 2005   68.190.244.102  Chicken Taco???
03:17, 25 Apr 2005   68.9.128.107    Salad w/ Lemon-oil Dressing
20:43, 30 Apr 2005   68.50.62.31     Pickled Bologna

Template

Hello, on the Dutch wikibooks, we've created a new skin for the template:

• One for recipes with picture: nl:Sjabloon:Receptmetafbeelding, example
• One for recipes without picture: nl:Sjabloon:Recept, example.
  

Firefox 10:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

This is excellent, thanks! We'll probably use something like it! 68.15.29.44 04:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recipes In Progress

Given the open source spirit of "release early, release often", I think that the cookbook would benefit from a template indicating that a recipe is a "Recipe In Progress" (RIP). This would indicate that a given article contains a recipe being created or adapted and should be discussed for possible improvements on the talk page. This way, original recipes that need to be further developed or new recipes that need to be tweaked can be clearly marked as such. Hopefully, this will lead to some testing by the community and at the end, a solid recipe will emerge. It might also be helpful if the template indicates that the recipe should be used at a reader's own risk. Yonkeltron 13:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Serves ??

may be each recipe should show how many people it serves and if its a side serving or full meal

And Perhaps a Variants list for the base article for eg for Macaroni and Cheese there's an article called Macaroni and Cheese and with in that page is a list of the different Variants of the recipe and a short Description: Over Baked: Cooked In the oven for Great Taste takes 1 hour Simple: Super quick Takes 10 minutes Stove Top: cook in a pot takes 20-25 minutes

Weight & Volume

The recipe template recommends use of volumes rather than weights on the grounds that many kitchens do not have scales. In Europe most kitchens do have scales, and a cheap kitchen scale need cost only a few dollars - high accuracy is not necessary.

Outside North America it is far less common to perceive a "cup" as a known volume (8 fl.oz.) and rather to see it as "whatever cup I have close to hand" which may vary by more than 5:2. Furthermore the physical state of an ingredient can cause its density to vary by 3:2 or even more - a cup of white flour can easily be as little as 100 gm or as much as 150 gm. For consistency and repeatability of recipes it is far better to use weight for solid ingredients and volume only for liquids.

I have not found a volume/weight conversion table for different ingredients - is there one?

"In Europe most kitchens do have scales, and a cheap kitchen scale need cost only a few dollars" ... wait a minute ... they don't use dollars in Europe. Good point though. Jimp (discuss • contribs) 05:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Conversions versus versions

Simply converting from US to metric often gives a whole bunch of weird measures. The same goes for going the other way. The same again for imperial to/from metric. If you scale things up or down a little, though, you get something sensible. For example, if you round US cups (8 US fl oz) up to 250 ml and pounds up to 500 g, you'll have slightly increased everything without really affecting the proportions and you'll have made a sane-looking metric version. Jimp (discuss • contribs) 05:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't be classified as a recipe

This page is classified as a recipe, which it should not be. —Kri (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree - I suppose it is a small thing, but would be more precise if it was moved to a "template" naming. Jamzze (discuss • contribs) 18:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Changing "procedure" to "method", or other name

Hi all, sorry started talking about this on the Policy talk page, but suggested for "procedure" to be renamed. My suggestion was "method", but open for other names. My underlining reasoning is that procedure is a rather formal sounding term, akin to a rocket launch procedure. As well, cook books often refer to there recipe steps as "to cook", or "instructions", etc. - a little less formal. Jamzze (discuss • contribs) 19:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding "equipment" as a section into the guidelines

I also proposed on the policy talk page that another section be added called "equipment" after "ingredients" within the guidelines. This would help establish a space to outline what equipment is needed before users attempt their recipe. Jamzze (discuss • contribs) 19:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea for recipes that require specialized equipment, though many recipes can be made with varying tools (using a hand whisk when the recipes asks for an electric mixer, and vice-versa), or with a varying number of bowls (washing out the bowl one mixed bread dough in and reusing for the first rise vs using a second bowl), which might cause a standardization issue with the equipment list, if it’s not clear if it’s a minimum required equipment list or a recommended one.

Perhaps someone else has an opinion on this? AceDragonfly (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Style guidelines

I've noticed some conflicts of opinion that arise between editors when it comes to recipe stylistic matters, and I propose that additional style guidelines are established here by community consensus so that there is a clear path forward! At the time of writing, myself, @Koavf, @Xeverything11, and @Xania are the primary contributors to the cookbook, and their input would be appreciated. To my knowledge, @Jamzze has also made significant contributions lately, and @AceDragonfly has also been involved.

My proposals include:

1. Decide between hyphens (-) and en dashes (–) when specifying ranges, such as quantity, temperature, time, etc. This would apply to ingredients, procedures, infoboxes, etc.
2. Establish guidelines for conversions: some editors use the convert template, but this can cause issues with legibility, formatting, insertion of additional units, linking, etc.
3. Establish guidelines for using ingredient tables and baker's notation in addition to the standard bulleted ingredient list formatting that already exists here.
4. Decide on whether to consistently/preferentially write out (degrees) Fahrenheit and (degrees) Celsius/Centigrade or to abbreviate them as ˚F and ˚C.
5. Decide on whether to consistently/preferentially spell out units (i.e. tablespoon, ounce, gram, inch, etc.) or to abbreviate them (i.e. tbsp, oz, g, in/", etc.).

I anticipate this will take some discussion. I will direct any future significant contributors to this discussion, but if there are no comments within, say, the next few months, I am inclined to start making decisions and codifying guidelines myself.

I will also be linking this thread in other places to solicit additional feedback. Looking forward to hearing people's thoughts!

—Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have been somewhat active on cookbooks and for what it's worth, made {{Cb}} for easy linking. As far as my perspective:

1. En dashes are just proper typography and should be used (see w:en:WP:DASH).
2. I use convert, but I'm open to any formatting issues. A solution may be importing the version at w:en:Template:Convert, which is very sophisticated and has lots of nuanced use cases.
3. I'm too ignorant here, but we definitely should get to a point where there are template-based semantics in these ingredients lists to add things like "[Ingredient] dishes" categories.
4. I'm biased toward "˚C and ˚F" as they save space, but it seems fairly trivial.
5. See above.

Happy Thanksgiving! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I definitely agree that abbreviations for temperature systems and measurement units should be standard, but I’ll leave the other matters up to the folks that do proper article formatting work! AceDragonfly (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi ya @Kittycataclysm, my perspectives:

1. Dashes
2. Convert template - if importing the one used on Wikipedia is possible that would be grand @Koavf - conversions really should be done through a central template so adjustments/ automatic conversions can take place to reduce difference across the cookbook. The only acceptance I would put in place is for historical recipes that do not have a unified units system and are converted into modern units. For these, I think we need a historical template or flagging system to let readers know that these have been converted (just an idea). But for the most part, a standard conversion template would work well.
3. Further examples needed - I am not sure what you mean here. Could you give examples?
4. "˚C and ˚F" - prefer the shorthand.
5. Abbreviate

Happy Thanksgiving for those of you in North America! Jamzze (discuss • contribs) 20:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot do it personally as I'm not an importer or admin. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Not a cookbook contributor, so you may ignore me if you wish, but my opinions are:

1. Dashes. Not everybody has access to a character map app.

2. Wikipedia convert template.

3. Not sure what you mean - skipping

4 / 5. Prefer shorthands. Quicker to read and type. (also always make sure any ^oC measurements have a matching ^oF in brackets afterwards. Some prefer different ones. I use C.

Like I said, I keep out of the cookbook where I can help it. At worst, I make a recipe that gets somebody poisoned... At best it'll taste like wood.... Also happy Thanksgiving to you North Americans!^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 22:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your feedback! To elaborate on two of the original points:

2. I'm not very familiar with w:en:Template:Convert, but if it can get imported it might make sense to try it out and see if it alleviates some of the formatting/legibility issues. My only concern is that when a template is used, it may not be possible to insert wikilinks into the output text so that units can be linked to—however, this may also be a solvable problem.

3. To clarify about ingredient tables: some recipes (see Cookbook:Cheese and Bacon Rolls for an example) format the recipe list as a table. In these instances, the columns and general formatting are not always standardized, which can lead to trouble when editing and collaborating on a recipe. I propose that we come to a consensus on how to format such tables. I also suggest the following columns: ingredient, count, volume, weight, and Baker's percentage; and that the tables have borders for ease of separation and legibility. Some people have had columns for imperial and metric, but I think it makes more sense to separate them like such:

Ingredient	Count	Volume	Weight	Baker's %
Eggs	2 ea.	–	100 g (3.5 oz)	–
Scallions, chopped	1 bunch	2 cups	200 g (7 oz)	–
Olive oil	–	2 tbsp (30 ml)	–	–
Total	–	–	500 g (17.6 oz)	–

This kind of formatting accounts for the variety of different ways that cooks can measure ingredients and for differences in national origin and equipment. I think it's the most flexible! Of course, it wouldn't need to replace the standard bulleted ingredient list we currently have, but it would provide an additional, well-formatted option.

—Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

That table looks like it woold be more convenient to readers than on some pages I've read. Some just have a list. How much milk? A few drops? A cupfull? How big is a cup then? Or do you add a full bottle in? How big is a bottle? Ive seen 5 different sizes in some shops! ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 15:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback: (1) En dashes are used for ranges, (2) importing w:en:Template:Convert would be useful, (3) useful, (4) and (5) prefer shorthands. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

{{Convert}}, which produces things like this: 40 °F (4 °C) already exists here.

However, it is a complicated template. The default ends up with over-precision in common uses (e.g., "400 °F (204 °C)" – you don't need the oven to be 204 °C exactly; you just need it to be in the general vicinity), and manually set rounding is done to the nearest 10, when the nearest 5 might make more sense. Also, in that case, you probably want "400 °F, 205 °C, gas mark 6" (and in German, you add "Stufe 3", because their gas marks don't match the UK's).

Overall, I think it's probably better if people do this by hand. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 21:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I've modified/expanded the suggested ingredients table as follows to try and propose a final standardized format:

Ingredient	Count	Volume	Weight	Baker's % (optional)
Component 1
Ingredient 1
Ingredient 2
Ingredient 3
...
Total (optional)
Component 2 (optional)
Ingredient 4
Ingredient 5
Ingredient 6
...
Total (optional)

Thoughts? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

That is really good! Hope you don't mind me stealing some of that markup, ive never made a table look that... Erm... Insert word that means "not boring" here. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 21:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @L10nM4st3r! Absolutely feel free to use the table markup—I hope it's helpful :) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf @Xeverything11 @Xania @Jamzze @L10nM4st3r Since it's been two weeks since the original proposal and over one week since the last comment, I am planning to edit the recipe template to include the following guidelines that appear to have attained consensus or, at least, have not been rejected:

• Use en dashes (–) when specifying ranges, such as quantity, temperature, time, etc.
• Use the abbreviations °F and °C instead of their full written forms.
• It is preferable to abbreviate certain long units as follows for increased legibility: tablespoon → tbsp, teaspoon → tsp, milliliter/millilitre → ml, centimeter/centimetre → cm. Avoid using a quotation mark to denote inches. Link units to their individual pages.
• Avoid nested parentheses.
• When listing ingredients in table format, follow the format above.

Please let me know if I have misunderstood or anything seems egregious. If not, I will make the changes. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 17:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds goodto me Jamzze (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it is better to spell out Tablespoon and teaspoon, because "tbsp" and "tsp" are a single-character typo – or a missing pair of reading glasses – away from disaster. (The worst option is abbreviating to T. and t., as some of my old handwritten recipes do.)

I personally prefer to capitalize Tablespoon; it's a convention I saw in a cookbook years ago, and it helps differentiate it even further. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 04:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Conversions

I think the conversions should follow the templates:

• X cups (X g/X oz) ingredient 1
• X cups (X ml/X US fl oz) ingredient 2

Where ingredients cannot be measured using cups, the template would be

• X g (X oz) ingredient 3

Where ingredients are measured by can/box/package, it would also be measured by g and oz, or ml and US fl oz, and optionally cups, the templates would be:

• X can/box/package (X cups/X g/X oz) ingredient 4
• X can/box/package (X g/X oz) ingredient 5
• X can/box/package (X cups/X ml/X US fl oz) ingredient 6

If the particular ingredient is less than ¼ cup or stick, the following templates would be:

• X tablespoons ingredient 7
• X teaspoons ingredient 8

It is almost impossible to measure small amount of liquids by mililiter up to 25 ml. Measuring cups often start at 25 or 50 ml, so I think the teaspoons and tablespoons would be simpler.

Do you agree on these proposed templates?

I'll pinging @Kittycataclysm, @SHB2000, @MarcGarver, @L10nM4st3r, @Xania, @Jamzze, @Minorax, @AceDragonfly and @Koavf. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal! Existing policy states that "quantities should be listed with whichever units...the recipe was created in, with the other equivalent values listed immediately after, in ()" so that "users know which units are 'original' and which are estimated conversions." Your proposal would change the original recipes and prioritize American volumes, which can have unintended consequences on the outcome of the recipe. Moreover, accurate cooking measurement tools for small milliliter volumes do exist, and not everything can be easily converted to the existing ¼/½/1 teaspoon and 1 tablespoon scheme. As such, I recommend sticking with existing policy. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! I think in the long term, creating some sort of template that the units of recipes can be nested within would be really helpful to allow automatic updates to occur as to their styling, rounding them, etc.

For now, I think keeping to the current way of doings things might be best, otherwise a lot of pages would have to be updated? Until this can be done automatically, this manual process might be too much? Jamzze (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious about what you mean when you say "some sort of template that the units of recipes can be nested within"! Is there something specific you're envisioning? I know my main concern as I mentioned above is the importance of indicating original units to avoid changing the recipe and to avoid prioritizing any particular set of units. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I'm neutral, since this seems like a well-considered proposal, but I'm a little too ignorant of cookbook best practices. I will say that all ingredients should be listed with structured data so that conversions, extractions, doubling-up, etc. can be done automatically. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Like you, I'm also neutral for the reasons you state – I would prefer if metric units were always included (which is the case anyway). SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 10:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you have a similar idea to Jamzze's above! I asked them for elaboration, and it would be good to hear your further thoughts as well. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with other folks on this, especially with Kittycataclysm’s point about emphasizing/preserving the original measurements of the recipe.

Justin & Jamzzee’s idea to have a way to automatically convert amounts is fantastic, and would help reduce the amount of human error involved in the process. There might be some problems with converting between customary volume units and metric weight units depending on the ingredients, but it should be completely possible to make a system that works! Before we have that, standardizing ingredient format manually would be a lot more work, so I think it would be best to make the automated system first. AceDragonfly (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not optimistic about converting automatically. The volume-to-weight measurements can be very different for different ingredients. One cup of flour is always going to be about 250 mL, but its weight could be anything from 85 to 180 grams, depending on the kind of flour. Oat flour weighs less than wheat flour, which weighs less than rice flour, which weighs less than potato flour; whole wheat weighs less than white flour, and pastry flour weighs less than all-purpose, which weighs less than gluten-free flour substitutes. Conversions from standard volume (e.g., cups) to metric volume (e.g., mL) are easy, but conversions between volume and weight should not be handled automatically. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 05:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with this point—automatic conversions between volume and weight would be difficult to implement. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no trouble measuring small amount of liquids by milliliter. I have metric measuring spoons, and a small graduated cylinder is cheap. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 04:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry my reply is late, ive been busy elsewhere. Im gonna try to be a bit more active again soon. I agree with Xeverything here, but only because im a sucker when it comes to cooking. Where I even a little bit dumber, I wouldnt be able to distinguish a frying pan to a baking tray xD. No idea the full advantage of what method, and wouldnt be able to tell you each measurment if my life depended on it. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 20:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

See also

We have multiple versions of some recipes (e.g., Black Forest Cake, Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte, and Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte (Black Forest Cake) II). Would it be better to link these in hatnotes at the top, or in a ==See also== section at the end, or something else? WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 01:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

That's an excellent question and something I've been mulling over for a while. One problem that I'm trying to address within the cookbook is manual indices on separate pages that don't get updated as the cookbook develops. In theory a "see also" could work, but every black forest cake recipe would then need to be updated any time a new black forest cake recipe is added. I've found a good deal of success with using categories as indices, since you only need to add the category to the new recipe, and the index gets updated automatically. It seems reasonable to do something similar for cross-connecting recipes for the same dish. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 04:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

So maybe a hatnote to "See similar recipes in Cookbook:Chocolate Cake#Black Forest Cake"? I don't think that "See also Category:Cake recipes" would be as useful, because there are too many. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 04:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would make sense to create a category for black forest cake specifically—there are certainly enough recipes there! And, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to keep pages like Cookbook:Chocolate Cake going forward. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 05:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

There are only three recipes for Black Forest cake, which is not a lot. I think some subcats would be good (chocolate cakes, cakes with fruit, fruit cakes, citrus cakes, spice cakes, nut cakes, white cakes, yellow cakes...) but only if they got pages out of the main cat and therefore made the "unclassifiable" cakes easier to spot. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 06:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)