Cookbook talk:Cardamom Bread

I'm trying out joy-of-cooking style for the ingredients part of the procedure. What do people think about it? It's a bit awkward visually, but I think it's more helpful as a printed out recipe. I'm not so sure about how the second half of the recipe is formatted. Kellen 00:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Giving the amounts a second time would make me nervously check them against each other. I've seen recipes that called for 2 cups of sugar, then used 1 cup in a batter and 1 cup as a topping. So if I see a second measurement, I'm going to get a bit paranoid. When a recipe gets too complicated for a simple numbered list (even with large steps), I split the list using headings. Rarely, I might use bulleted lists to break up steps that have multiple parallel tasks. For examples, see: Cookbook:Egg_Roll, Cookbook:Turkey_Soup, Cookbook:Molasses_Cookies, Cookbook:Wonton_Soup. Oh, note that for some unknown reason it is standard for the Cookbook to skip 1st-level headers. Maybe this is bad, but we should reach general agreement on that before changing. AlbertCahalan 00:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking at the html, it makes sense. Each top-level header is rendered with a h1 tag. Html specifies that there should be only one h1 tag, so using level two headers everywhere would be the appropriate structural thing to do. I'll take a look at those recipes. Kellen 01:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I looked at those recipes; they work for the situation you describe with respect to the same ingredient being used in different sections of the recipe. What I am concerned with, however, is readability of the procedure when actually doing the recipe, which I feel is enhanced by a style like this. Still, I don't want to break the wikibooks de facto standard of listing ingredients separately without some consultation with the other contributors. Kellen 03:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I should be clearer about the problem: The recipe requires 2 cups of sugar. I measure this out. Part way through the procedure, the recipe says to add 1 cup of sugar. I dump in the sugar that I've already measured. Whoops! To avoid this error, I must be extremely careful when using a recipe that specifies ingredients in two places. Also, what if the recipe disagrees with itself? This sort of thing happens as people adjust things. AlbertCahalan 04:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I totally understood that. I agree that listing ingredients in multiple places isn't desirable. I was just testing out a different style for the recipe as a whole. Kellen 04:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * So I guess I don't care for the idea, but it isn't a big deal. I'd be less bothered if the numbers were only in one place. The fancier formatting looks like extra work too, without justification that I can see. I guess you might mention the ideas on the Cookbook talk page to see what others think. AlbertCahalan 04:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The main thing I was thinking about was if someone printed out the recipe and tried to use it as they are working in the kitchen. I'm not that bothered either way. Perhaps I'll mention it on the main talk page. Kellen 04:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

This recipe calls for 1/2 c sugar in the list, but does not appear to use it in the recipe. It also calls for 1/2 t salt in the list, and uses salt twice in the recipe. My guess would be that sugar should replace salt in one of the instances, but I'm afraid I don't know enough about baking to say where. I do think it might be more appropriate to place this under "vegeterian" rather than "vegan".

Image
Can we get an image for this article? Sugarpine 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The next time I make it I'll take one. Kellen T 19:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What about listing all the ingredients together, but, indicating when something gets split.

2 C Granulated Sugar, split 4 C Milk, Whole or 2%, split

It alerts the user that they will need to split or reserve part of this, however, for a shopping list, all the ingredients are listed together.