Cookbook talk:Table of Contents/Archive 2

Moved older talk from Talk:Cookbook here. Kellen 16:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk page at en:
w:Talk:Wikipedia_Cookbook is rather extensive and worth reading on point of view and features required.

A new way of ordering recipes
I've been navigating around Cookbook and I find it is not scalable. Recipe lists will get (I expect) too long to display on a single page and navigating just by one category or alphabetically just wont do it. Mantaining these lists is just not a requisite and recipes could just be hanging there.

As a Sourceforge and Freshmeat user, I found their way of browsing much more easy. A project has specific attributes and you can browse/filter by them. You don't have to add it to the different indexes, it is just there.

A recipe could have specific attributes like ingredients, time to cook, region, type of food, calories, etc. With an automatic indexing system, it would be automatically linked on every category under the attribute specified. This would avoid mantainance time of index pages and maximize search capabilities.

Searching would by as easy as browsing by region (for example, Asian --> Chinese --> Cantonese) and filtering by ingredient (for example, all that have the ingredient Rice and doesn't have Tuna) and by time to cook (for example, less than 30 minutes).

I don't know if wikimedia can do it, but it would be really cool.

--SamSam 20:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This is what categories do in Wikipedia I think. Categories are just a primitive version of what you are explaining. It would be a nice feature but I don't know if it is possible at the moment. liblamb 22:55, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks like Gentgeen's started to categorize some of the recipes. Good job man. What is your plan with this. I see that the categories so far come from the "National and Ethnic Cuisines" and the "Recipes" section of the first page. Have any guidance for some of us others when it comes to categorizing? I changed the Midwestern cuisine page so that there was not a list of recipes but a link to the category page to see if that would work well. What do people think. If it's good, I'll change lists on many such pages. liblamb 00:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * So far, I've been categorizing recipes by four attributes: by main ingredient under Category:Recipes by ingredient; by inclusion in a particular diet under Category:Recipes by diet; by which cuisine it belongs to under Category:Recipes by origin; and by type of dish under the other subcategories in Category:Recipes.  Where it seemed reasonable, such as Category:Chicken soups, I've combined the type of dish and ingredient in one category that can then be included as a subcat in both branches of the recipe category tree, but I've not fully planned that out yet.  We only have a few hundred recipes right now, so the task shouldn't be that hard (compared to when I categorized the chemistry topics at wikipedia), but any help would be appriciated (I'm particularly bad at including text in the category pages. I'd rather get things categorized first, then tend to forget to go back and write the short blurb and link to the module with more information.); additionally categories for ingredients, cooking techniques, and cuisines should be developed. Gentgeen 03:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As SamSam said about his categorization and filtering suggestion, I have concerns about the cookbook's scalability. From my experience using public recipe sites, I have found that the more recipes they accumulate, the less useful they become. Even with a robust categorization system, the duplicate recipes make it very hard to research what you want to make. Although it may be some work, I suggest that we implement a rating and feedback system as I find this greatly increases a site's usefulness. This idea was inspired by VegWeb, which is a public recipe site that is a pleasure to peruse as compared with other sites such as cooks.comthat seem sterile due to the lack of public feedback. An open feedback forum on the recipe page is vital for the testing of the recipes and for the opening of dialogue that is so much a part of the creative process of cooking. Variations of recipes can be posted here and a rating system can be implemented for the feedback entries to prioritize entries that people found most useful/informative and to highlight variations on recipes that are most popular. This system should be on the front end and easily accessible to the public, thus not in any way restricted to active builders of the book's content. This would be an excellent way of dealing with the philosophical issue raised by Snowspinner (above) about open-ended vs fixed recipes. I am an advocate for the open-ended approach, but a recipe can get too overwhelming with too much information at once. The original author of a recipe should still be allowed to put in as much extra information as they would like such as variations, cooking techniques, ingredient information, etc. However, a feedback system would be an indispensable way of building this extra information that everyone can learn from.

--Gothicsurf 19:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I know it's not perfect, or designed for exactly this purpose, but each page has an associated talk page (like this one) where feedback, questions, results, ect., could be recorded. Also, the recipe template asks for a variations section, where either a simple variation can be fully explained, or links to seperate recipe pages for complex variations can be listed.  Additionally, if you look at our page on Guacamole or Empanadas you'll find three or four recipes all on the same page.
 * I aslo hope for a better way to organize recipe, but right now wikibooks is the little sister of wikipedia, and we're just a part of wikibooks, so the developers aren't spending a lot of time working on software upgrades targeted at us. I think if we have an organized plan when we ask for new features, we'll get a better responce.  To help that along, I'm going to create a page called Cookbook feature requests, where we can organize the various things we'd like to see. Gentgeen 19:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oven temperatures
Hi everyone. I've created a page called Gas_mark with a conversion table for F, C and gas mark. Can I suggest that when anyone uses a gas mark in a recipe, they link to this page (eg 'cook at gas mark 7 for 20 minutes. (Could also do this from F and C?) (Might be better to rename the page?) Redlentil 19:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) Oh well, in the face of indifference, I've done so. There's now a page called Cookbook:Oven temperatures where you can refer all baking settings. Redlentil 23:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia entries
When listing ingredients, should I be linking them to the local Cookbook ingredients pages, e.g. Cookbook:Milk, or to the Wikipedia pages? I would think that the Cookbook should be more self contained, if possible. Kellen 1:32, 7 Jan 2005

I'd say without doubt, link to the Cookbook: entry, for the reason that entries for ingredients in Cookbook should concentrate on the culinary aspects of the ingredient, rather than anything else. For example Cookbook:Potato, where I've done a fair bit of work, is all about cooking and eating, rather than the social history of the potato, or how to grow potatoes. Redlentil 20:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Structure
Is there an obvious structural way to refer to the ingredients within the recipe? It would be nice to be able to say, "I have kale and tumeric, give me a list of recipes" ... or should I just use the basic search function? Kellen 1:34, 7 Jan 2005 (datestamp?)

I can't think of a way to do this for two ingredients, but if you're looking for, say, tofu-recipes you can go to the tofu page and click 'what links here' on the bottom-left of the page. risk
 * If we added each ingredient as a category then it shouldnt be too dificult to create a search script to give back possible recipes from a list of ingredients. The bellman 09:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cookbook not well-bounded
The cookbook is not distinct enough from the rest of the wikibooks stuff. It's a mess. When I go to look at recent changes, I see stuff about brain scanner technology and such. Often, links take me to some generic wikibook page. Grrrr.... I just want the cookbook! When I list the catagories, same problem. Most of the catagories are very much not appropriate for cooking.

I think there may also be some bad link structure, making it hard to drill down to a desired recipie. It is hard to tell now though, with the cookbook being drowned out by unrelated stuff.

Template
Ok, first i made this template before i saw that there was already a template used on some recipes. Second it is the first info box style template i have ever made. Anywho, you can all see what it looks like at Cookbook:Creme_Anglaise/trial. Any ideas how it can be improved, or merged with the other template? Do people mind if i start adding it to recipes? The bellman 07:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) oh, also i forgot to add, i thought that there should be different colours for different types of recipes, as i see it there would be three obvious choices. Type of dish (ie. dessert, entree, etc.), Origin of dish (ie. Indian, southern european, etc.) or difficulty of dish (ie. easy, medium, etc.); anyone have thoughts on that question? The bellman 07:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Putting the ingredients in such a box is terrible. Many ingredient lists are too wide. Some recipies have multiple ingredient lists, either from variations or from grouping distinct parts of the recipie (filling vs. shell, etc.) for easier understanding.

It would be nice if you could pick a more appetizing example too. I'm sick of looking at that snot. How about pizza or brownies? AlbertCahalan 18:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll change the featured stuff. I got a bit behind.  Any suggestions? Oh, as we've got the five dot rating system, I think having the color scheme based on dificluty would be redundant. Gentgeen 03:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't find even one other recipe with a picture. Somebody should send me a digital camera. The egg rolls would make for wonderful photos. Anybody else want to cook them? Come on all you Iron Chefs! The tamales would make for nice photos too, if you can take close-up photos in good light. (one broken open, and one intact) AlbertCahalan

small text
I think it is bad to mark text as being small. Some people have bad eyesight. It is especially bad to have a major portion of a page in small text.

Category merge, any objections?
Category:Poultry_recipes has only two sub-categories, for turkey and chicken. I can not think of any case in which it would not be completely resonable to substitute one bird for the other.

So, both categories should go. The recipes move up into the poultry one.
 * Sounds fine to me. liblamb 05:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Main Page - Change suggested
The Sauces section contains things like chutney, which are not sauces, but condiments. I was going to add the category Condiments and move the chutney recipes, but there is a notice that says No edit....I am not sure if the no edit section applies to the entire page, or where it ends.


 * How about a "sauces and condiments" section? Many foods are both: soy sauce, ketchup, gravy... Ones that are not both include: salt (condiment only), the yummy goop in many Chinese dishes (sauce only), black pepper (condiment only), teriyaki sauce (sauce only)...


 * Yeah, that sounds ok. And recipes can be subcategorized as more appear.


 * to answer one of your earlier questions, the "no edit" section tells the html engine that the little sectional "edit" buttons on the right of section headers are not displayed, not that the page shouldn't be edited. If we didn't want the page edited, it would be protected, which doesn't appear in the wikitext section. Gentgeen 21:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting recipe format
Cooking for Engineers has an interesting recipe format that combines the ingredients list with instructions into a 2-D table. I think the site was /.ed a while back. Some examples (scrol down to bottom of the page);
 * 
 * 

Duk 00:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I emailed him last year some time about the possibility of us using his instruction style, he was very happy for us to use it, but he was looking into copyrighting (or patenting or something) and licensing it for comercial uses, which wouldnt have worked with our GFDL (as in he was willing to release under something like cc-sa-nc). Anyway, i never got around to seeing how his legal wranglings worked out. If he discovered that it was not pretecable under IP law, then i guess we could use it, if it is, then probably not. Anyway, its worth contacting him again. The bellman 16:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

excite
yeah,this is my first page here.

Cookbook:Cumin and Cookbook:Caraway
For the third time (on the Cookbook:Goulash Soup page), I've seen mention of people confusing Cookbook:Cumin and Cookbook:Caraway seed. Is this for real? It's looking like an urban legand to me. Nobody in their right mind could mix these up. One sold as a powder is used in Mexican food, in copious amounts. The other is a somewhat sour seed that goes on rye bread, used to help sell dental floss.

I'm sure somebody could, in theory, confuse these spices. They could also confuse mayonaise and sour cream, beef and pork, or rice and corn. It doesn't seem too likely.

mixed drinks are a problem
There must be a million mixed drinks. Those without obscene names (a few hundred thousand at least) cause horrible conflicts in the cookbook. I certainly don't expect alcohol when I see apricot pie. I expect, well, a pie containing apricots! These "recipes" are mostly all the same too. You pour stuff into a glass, duh.

So, how about kicking all these out of the cookbook? They could be renamed to start with "Cocktail:" at the very least. Probably they should just be a giant table instead of individual entries.

AlbertCahalan 06:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. Maybe call it "Bar Guide:". Gentgeen 09:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Or "Cookbook:Bartending:" ;) Kellen 05:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

spam and copyright violation
First of all, somebody stole our Paella recipe:

http://www.cellartastings .com/en/food-spanish-recipes-paella.html

(URL broken on purpose, to avoid supplying a link to a crook)

Compare that with the Cookbook:Paella recipe at 03:07, 30 Aug 2004. The body text is identical, and contains expression that may be protected under copyright law. (note: do not consider this to be legal advice, etc.) (the cooking actions and the lists of ingredients are only patentable, but these people copied the sentences of the procedure -- grammer, sentence structure, and all)

Now check the Cookbook:Paella recipe "External links" section. Somebody is trying to sell paella pans. Nice, but it doesn't seem fair that the cookbook should be marketing for them. The same problem is on the Cookbook:Gazpacho page, selling gazpacho ingredients.

It looks like the copyright violator might be out of reach for a DMCA takedown, but maybe the info is fake. Here's what I see:

$ whois cellartastings.com Found a referral to whois.joker.com. domain:      cellartastings.com status:      lock owner:       Desmond McCarthy organization: Cellartastings email:       dmccarthy@desmc.com address:     C/L Ribera De manazanares address:     N.1 8A city:        madrid state:       madrid postal-code: 28008 country:     spain admin-c:     joker2@xcalibre.co.uk#0 tech-c:      joker2@xcalibre.co.uk#0 billing-c:   joker2@xcalibre.co.uk#0 reseller:    XCalibre Communications Ltd reseller:    Co-location, Dedicated Servers & Webhosting reseller:    http://www.xcalibre.co.uk                          reseller:     Sales: 0870 050 0080 nserver:     ns1.xcalibre.co.uk  nserver:      ns2.xcalibre.co.uk  created:      2003-10-09 13:50:29 UTC modified:    2003-10-09 13:50:29 UTC expires:     2005-10-09 09:50:14 UTC source:      joker.com live whois service query-time:  0.057712 db-updated:  2005-04-07 16:34:04

Category Listing
There is no link on the main page to the category lists Recipes by origin, Recipes by ingredient, or Recipes by diet, three very useful categories to use while browsing the recipes. I think we should try to use the wiki software to categorize the recipes as much as possible. As the software improves it will become easier to view articles in a subcateogry. --Alpharigel 16:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, there is. Look at the bottom. What is really missing is a way to view all categories associated with the cookbook. Normally the "Catagories" link would do this, but the cookbook still doesn't have a wiki to itself. All the special pages suffer from this problem. AlbertCahalan 17:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You can request that "Cookbook" be added as a real namespace. Once done, that would presumably allow for the creation of special pages listed most wanted, orphans, etc, just within that namespace. TUF-KAT 02:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought I did request that Cookbook become a real namespace several months ago. Gentgeen 02:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, maybe. Where did you ask?  I really don't know who's in charge of that -- I think it takes a developer to do it, so I'd ask at meta somewhere. Are there any developers on wikibooks? TUF-KAT 21:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Might that allow for non-cookbook links to be marked as external? (the little icon after the link) I'd really like the Wikipedia links to be marked, but also any other wiki books. Anything outside the cookbook should be marked. AlbertCahalan 17:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pasta: one article per type?
Somebody just added a Macaroni stub article, currently linked only from the pasta page. This is looking like a bad trend to me. There are lots of different types of pasta, all nearly identical except for physical shape. (most of which have pseudo-Italian names, heh)

Wikipes
FYI, there is another wiki site for recipes now. It can be found at Wikipes.com. liblamb 18:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation rules?
Are there any rules on capitalisation of the names of articles for the Cookbook? In the Equipment section, I've found a mixture of styles. For example, stock pot could be named either Stock Pot or Stock pot. I prefer the latter, but what are the rules, and should I move incorrectly names articles and the links to them? Cheers, Donovan. 03:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia would use "Stock pot" to take advantage of an easy linking feature. You can write your link as stock pots and it'll work, because Wikipedia automatically uppercases the first letter. This doesn't make any sense for Wikibooks, because we nearly always must rename links with the "|" character anyway. We should go with what looks good for page titles, which is titlecase. Examples: "Stock Pot", "Fish and Chips", "A Nice Cup of Tea"... AlbertCahalan 05:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I understand that we can choose how the link is displayed with the | symbol. But, I'm more worried about people entering broken links in their recipes when they don't need to. For example, if I add a link to some text in my recipe, it will not work, as the article is currently called Stock Pot. I think that we need to develop guidelines on how articles should be named. Similarly, the Cutlery list only capitalises the first letter of the name, while the Pots and pans list capitalises the first letter of all major words. I'm just saying, that we need to choose one or the other, because the current system is jarring to the reader. Cheers, Donovan. 07:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The point is not that we can choose how the link is displayed, but that we must. (to ditch the "Cookbook:" prefix) This eliminates the reasons to capitalize the first (and only first) letter. People are going to add broken links no matter what. I had to add lots of redirects for deep-fat frying. This is life with a wiki that has case sensitivity enabled. Capitalization in a list need not match capitalization in the link target name. I and somebody else (redlentil? I forget) have been lowercaseing ingredients. All-lowercase is generally most readable, but sometimes keeping the link text equal to the target (minus "Cookbook:" of course) is easier to deal with. Cut-and-paste is easier this way. I guess what I really dislike is capitalizing only the first letter of the link target (article title) or link text. It's rather ugly. AlbertCahalan 07:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As you say, if we have an existing version (like Stock Pot), we can simply create a redirect to it from another version (like Stock pot), or vice versa. So I'll continue to use w:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), and change the page titles of a few of my existing pages as I get a chance. I'll have to leave the decision on the global capitalisation of the category lists to others, as it's potentially a hot potato. One wonders what will happen when and if we get to drop the annoying Cookbook: prefix? I suppose that we will have to put a bit more work into it first. Cheers, Donovan. 09:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pulling info off Wikipedia
I want to fill out Cookbook with a few topics such as Cookbook:Pinot Noir. There's a article on Wikipedia for Pinot Noir. First of all, are there any guidelines as to what should be pulled off into a Wikibook and what should be linked? And, secondly, when using text from Wikipedia, do we need to give attribution etc.? —Christiaan 23:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * When using Wikipedia text, copy the article history into the new talk page. Yuck, but the GFDL supposedly requires this. As for Pinot Noir though, I don't see any reason why it would belong in the Cookbook. I don't think it belongs in the Bartending or Gardening books either. It belongs in Wikipedia. :-) Maybe something on Pinot Noir could go into the Gardening book, but then your first priority would be to cover the general practice of growning grapes. (rootstock, support wires, pruning, soil conditions, weed and pest control...) Your second priority would be anything specific to Pinot Noir, if there even is anything different about it. AlbertCahalan 02:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Generally it is best to link as follows:
 * Bartending book: most stuff involving alcohol
 * Cookbook: cooking-related stuff that doesn't relate to bartending
 * Gardening book: info about growing stuff, generally linked from ingredient pages
 * Wikipedia: unusual non-cooking stuff (heart disease, Christmas, aluminum)
 * Wikipedia: tomatoes from the Cookbook:Tomato page (only), etc.
 * nowhere: boring stuff


 * Thanks Albert. So what happens say when someone wants to print a Wikibook for instance, shouldn't there be a page in it that describes Pinot Noir with regard to cooking? —Christiaan 09:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so. This is a type of grape for making wine, right? Making wine isn't really cooking. You could start a Winemaking book if you like. For cooking, there are a few recipes that say "red wine". Some of those might suggest a somewhat more specific wine. I do not think it is generally appropriate for a recipe to demand a specific type of grape. A cook should pick his favorite red wine, having some appropriate balance amongst good quality, low cost, and availability. AlbertCahalan 15:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * When I say Pinot I'm referring specifically to the wine as a primary food, rather than as part of a recipe. Is Cookbook restricted to recipe related information rather than cuisine in general? My impression was that it was a book on cuisine, hence we have sections such as Cuisine of New Zealand, which includes Pinot Noir wine for instance. —Christiaan 23:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If you mean the wine, not the grape, then that ought to go in the Bartending book. As you can see above, under the mixed drinks are a problem header, bartending is a big subject that leads to namespace conflicts. If you mean the grape though, I think you should start a Winemaking book. Go right ahead, starting with a rough table of contents and a page about Pinot Noir grapes. BTW, I do hope you have new info beyond what already exists in Wikipedia. Keeping duplicate information in sync is difficult. AlbertCahalan 02:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the grape, as I said I'm talking about the wine as a part of cuisine. Would you mind answering my previous question? —Christiaan 21:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Wine as part of cuisine would be a very interesting topic. Wine/food matching, wine as an ingredient, how to host a wine tasting party, etc.  I think there is more than enough information available about wine as cuisine to fill out a chapter or section of the cookbook. As far as using wikipedia content on books, if the article is to remain on the 'pedia, provide a link back to wikipedia article, and cite it as a source, or name at least five of the principal authors of the article (although linking is easier and prefered). Gentgeen 05:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope this doesn't get too elitist. I suspect that line has been crossed once you start to discuss particular varieties of grapes. Note that we don't discuss the different types of wheat, which is far more relevant to a cookbook. (there's hard wheat and soft, red wheat, winter wheat...) I have a strong feeling that the wine info could grow to be very large, while providing little real help in cooking. AlbertCahalan 07:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get fixated on wine, it was just an example. It would be very helpful if you could answer my inital question Albert. Do you consider Cookbook is restricted to recipes as opposed to the wider topic of cuisine. If you consider it to be restricted to recipes then why do we have a cuisines section? I'm equally interested in how we deal with cervena (venison), Bluff oysters, paua (abalone), mussels, scallops, pipis and tuatua (both are types of New Zealand shellfish); tamarillo, sauvignon blanc, chardonnay, pinot noir, pinot gris, cabernets. All of these foods, as you may or may not know, are a central part of New Zealand cuisine. —Christiaan 13:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. The question is clearer now. I think a cookbook should contain recipes (obviously) and things that are closely tied to recipes. As a rough guide, ask yourself if more than one recipe would link to a particular topic. Getting back to wines (sorry) for a moment, a typical recipe might link to "Red Wine" and then list a few suggestions or desired qualities for the ideal choice. The cookbook does have venison; I suggest that you make cervena a redirect if you think it will get used. Buff oysters, assuming they are true oysters, should get a mention on the oyster page. If a paua is "a kind of green abalone", it should be a redirect to abalone, where it can have a section to itself if worthwhile. (see the tomato, potato, and mushroom pages for how specific varieties can be handled) Mussels and scallops exist as "Mussel" and "Scallop"; add redirects (**sigh**) if you think they will get used. I guess pipis and tuatua deserve pages... they can't be classified as clams or oysters, right? I think they should get Wikipedia entries first though. Be sure to mention substitutions, because there's no way I could ever find such food at my supermarket. The tamarillo should get a page. The more popular and significant wines should get listed on the wine page, hopefully without making the page unreadable to those who are not international wine tasters, producers, and purchasing agents. AlbertCahalan 17:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay cool. So in your opinion Cookbook should only cover cuisine (by this I mean "describe food" as opposed to recipes) in a cursory manner? Is there any page that describes what Cookbook is and what it is not? —Christiaan 17:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess you could call it "cursory", but that sounds a bit more extreme than I intended. Tomatoes get more than a paragraph, but not a separate page for each variety. I think that a cookbook is fundamentally about recipes, but that a cookbook with recipes alone would be awful. The other stuff is there to support the recipes. The "Cuisine of Somewhere" pages act as shared "see also" sections while also giving a bit of cultural context for serving suggestions and similar. The ingredient pages and tool pages perform similar functions, supporting the recipies with info that might be needed to use the recipes or locate similar recipes. Non-recipe pages should be helpful in finding, interpreting, using, and editing the recipe pages. I think this is the normal definition of a cookbook, so it isn't written down here. I suggest looking at several physical cookbooks in a library if you want to get a better idea. This cookbook is already a bit more detailed than most, which is nice as long as it doesn't get out of hand. AlbertCahalan 18:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to think the cookbook, gardening guide, cocktail book, etc, should all be part of a single project, distinct from Wikibooks. Wikimedia projects all go above and beyond what a more typical reference work would do -- wiktionary has not just definition and such, but also translations into and from dozens of languages, for example.  The Cookbook/Cuisine/Gardening/Etc. book should cover everything to do with food, from growing it to preparing it to serving and eating it.  So, absolutely we should include information on different kinds of grapes (and wheat and oysters) -- whether or not this info should be part of a separate Wine book, or whatever, is a distinct issue which I don't really have an opinion on, but I do think it should be part of the same project. TUF-KAT 21:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Leaving wikibooks would help a bit with the "special pages" problem. I'd still rather just see cookbook stuff, but at least it wouldn't be mixed in with Ada and Calculus anymore. I think it is important to keep the non-recipe pages under "Cookbook:" related to the recipes, but Cookbook:Wine could provide links to a Wine book for those who want the complex and numerous details. It's not OK to just do a redirect, because the cookbook itself needs a short and really simple page about wine in cooking. This seems like a good time to mention a horrid project that has crossed my mind. Moving the recipes to be under "Recipe:" might someday be very helpful. Besides conflict reduction, a true namespace would probably make recipe-specific wiki features more implementable. Obviously I'm not about to just do this, so don't panic; it's something to think about though. The ability to rate recipes in a personal way would be useful, similar to the way a music recommendation service will suggest new songs that are highly rated by people with similar tastes to your own. Bayesean might work too, like a spam filter, but I think not as well. AlbertCahalan 23:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * To satisfy the GFDL, I think that you can get away with simply linking back to the original Wikipedia article, see toaster for example, and use   to do it. Using the date and time of creation of your article, it's easy for others to view the content of the original Wikipedia article then (and its history before that time). Additionally, it's a good idea to note that you used material from Wikipedia in the comment for your initial edit and/or on the talk page (although, I sometimes forget to do that). Cheers, Donovan. 13:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)