CZ Talk:Recipes

Continental

"Continental", I think, is the wrong word to use for this subgrouping, or grouping. The word, at least in the United States, used to have a very definite, although vague, meaning: a semi-French, semi-Italian, semi-SOMETHING sort of upscale cuisine, served in fancy restaurants, that was NOT what was plainly recognized as American-type food. Some of the best restaurants in Los Angeles, say, in the 1950s and 1950s, such as Perino's, La Rue, and Scandia, as well as a whole bunch of others, served what was generally called "Continental Cuisine". I think that the phrase has now disappeared, except, perhaps, in an ironic sense, but to geezers like me it seems wrong to use it as proposed here. I dunno what else to suggest, however.... Hayford Peirce 10:27, 22 February 2008 (CST)

No, you're right. My grandfather had taken chef courses and there was definitely a style of American (read 'US') cooking called Continental, a chi chi fon fon fon style. I don't know if that's where the "continental breakfast" came from - same idea or not, I mean.

Soo...was 'continental' here meant to mean 'sorted by continent'? Why don't we just do that, then? I started--change it back if you no like.

I can foresee a bit of a problem, though--is this going to end up being a listing by country? Then by region within country? Are we starting the CZ International Cookbook?

I don't actually care; I'm jus' sayin'.

Aleta Curry 22:46, 22 February 2008 (CST)

Frankly, I don't know what the hell we're doing, or where we're going. Everyone seems to spend so much time on Proposals, and Proposals *about* Proposals, etc. etc., with gazillions of words and woman-hours of thought devoted to them, without anything, seemingly, ever being *done*, that although I may not actually *despair*, at least my mind reels and my eyes glaze. For instance, right now, we have an article called French cuisine, and as a subpage to that French cuisine/Catalogs; the latter has a long list of French food items, some of which are linked to actual articles, some of which, in turn, actually have recipes within them.... Several months ago, some of us spent a certain amount of time making lists, which became Catalogs, I guess, of different cuisines by nationality, and various proposals were made about them, and then suddenly nothing more was said or done about them. So, right now, where do the two above-mentioned articles/catalogs fit into the Grand Scheme of Things? Hayford Peirce 10:38, 23 February 2008 (CST)

US humorist and food writer Calvin Trillin sometimes makes fun of "Continental-cuisine" restaurants by referring to an imaginary one called "Le Maison de la Casa House". Bruce M.Tindall 09:15, 23 February 2008 (CST)

Calvin Trillin is great -- there should be an article about him! Hayford Peirce 10:29, 23 February 2008 (CST)

In India, continental refers to any food belonging to / originating from Europe or North America. Non-continental may be Chinese, Mughlai, or Kerala / Bengali food and so on. Supten Sarbadhikari 21:37, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Index

Somewhere, and right from the beginning, we're gonna have to have a *really* good index for the recipes, one that is *truly* comprehensive, so that no matter how someone is looking for a particular recipe he/she will be able to *easily* find it. Each entry, of course, will have a redirect to a single recipe. In other words, Beef Burgundy, Boeuf a la bourguignon, Boeuf a la bourguignonne, Beef bourguignon, etc. Or, of course, an alternative: have a see Beef bourguignon etc. for all the variants, directing to whatever we decide is the principle name for each item.

In the iconic old New York Times Cookbook of 1961 edited by Craig Clairborne there was an excellent index that *also* included things like Martinis and a couple of other cocktails, since there was a brief drinks recipe section at the end of the food recipes. We would want to have drinks included in the master recipe....

A further thought: assuming we came up with different recipes (someone suggested iconic ones) for the same dish, the index could also look like:

• Hamburger
  • Ray Krok's Big Burger
  • Paul Bocuse's 'Omburgaire Extraordinaire
  • Paul Prudhomme's Cajun 'Burger
  • James Beard's George Washington's Favorite
  • Etc.

Hayford Peirce 19:36, 22 February 2008 (CST)

That's a good idea. Supten Sarbadhikari 21:40, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Should be scholarly

Placing things like "equipment you will need" and "preparation time" seems more like something out of Good Housekeeping magazine. We really ought to ensure we take a scholarly approach here, and really ought rely chiefly on quoting. Stephen Ewen 01:23, 23 February 2008 (CST)

• That's a good point, of course. On the other hand, it's always useful when looks at a recipe to be told from the start how long it ought to take to make, although, in my rather extended experience in the kitchen, almost every recipe I've ever seen always grossly understates the time required, perhaps not for the actual cooking, but almost *always* for the preparation time. And if one ventures into the haute world of classical French cuisine.... My mother, my French wife, and I, three very experienced cooks, once ventured to make the classic French mother sauce called an Espagnol, which is the basis of all the great French brown sauces. The very detailed recipe said that it could be made leisurely over a weekend, while the cook took time out to dip into Fanny Hill as the stock simmered slowly. Aside from about 6 hours of driving around San Francisco to obscure wholesale meat markets, Latino markets for pig rind, etc. etc., plus a venture to a restaurant supply store to buy a *second* 15-gallon pot, it took the three of us 3 long, hard days to make the damn stuff. And it might have been *very* useful to warn us that a *second* enormous pot would be needed. And that a *strong* person is needed to *lift* the freakin' pots once they're filled.

• So I think that if we have a recipe for, say, Bearnaise sauce, we can assume that the average person has a couple of sharp knives, a small pot, a whisk or an electric blender, in other words the usual stuff that a well-equipped kitchen should have. For some recipes, however, it ought to be made clear what will be needed in addition to just the ingredients.

• Although as far as equipment goes, I think I could put my hands on a couple of classic, or semi-classic, lists of what, say, a *restaurant* kitchen should have, or what a well-equipped home kitchen for someone interested in French cuisine should have. And for Chinese cooking, let's say, it might be useful to point out that most recent tests of different methods of cooking traditional Chinese dishes at home have shown that unless you have a *professional* quality heat source for your wok, you will have more success in using an ordinary frying pan or saute dish -- home kitchens just aren't equipped to heat woks to the extremely high temperatures that restaurants use. It can be done at home, of course, if you want to cut a big round hole in a kitchen counter and then install a separate gas-burning wok heater beneath the counter (my dream, in the olden days), but I doubt if many people actually do this.

• I think, if it comes down to it, in general, *more* information is better than *less* information. But as to what format it should be put into, I don't have a clue.... Hayford Peirce 10:57, 23 February 2008 (CST)

I think prep time and equipment can just be handled within the natural flow of the "Preparation" section. Cook for 2 hours in a big pot. I say this in the interest of keeping the recipe as simple as possible. Also, I think we should do away with the difficulty rating - I don't think we're here to give our opinions on the recipes difficulty, taste, etc.. simply provide the reader with a basic recipe so they can better understand the article about the particular dish. I'm going to clean this up on this page, feel free to revert, but I'm feeling bold. --Todd Coles 22:43, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Sorry, I missed the above comment before adding some stuff just a moment ago to the main article's example. In any case, my additions were tentative, just to see what they looked like and how people reacted to them.

• Prep. time is, of course, quite subjective, as people work at incredibly different speeds. Most of the newer cookbooks do give prep. times but, in my judgment, they are always wrong, seriously underestimating the time. The New York Times Cook Book does not give them at all. So, I agree, we're probably wasting our time with this.
• Equipment -- as you say, within the flow of the article.
• Difficulty rating is the hardest of all and I threw it in just for the sake of completion. In the example given, I tried to write an honest evaluation from my own standpoint. Making Bologonese (I think) is a snap BUT it's tedious, time-consuming, and you can't just throw it on the stove and let it cook for 8 hours -- you gotta check it every 30 minutes, for instance, and probably add a little water. If we try to put all of that in (outside of the recipe steps), it will entail an entire essay....
• I *do* think that we want the number of servings in a fairly prominent spot, though. This, too, is somewhat subjective, but not as much as some of the other items.

But, of course, I'm open to suggestions all the way along the line

Hayford Peirce 12:09, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Number of servings is fine with me. My issue with difficulty is, much like prep time, it all depends on how comfortable the cook is in a kitchen. If someone has never baked a cake before, it will obviously be more difficult than for someone who has a little more experience with it. --Todd Coles 12:59, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Yup, I think of myself as a *moderately* rapid cook, fairly neat, and *very* painstaking. My French wife was a speed demon -- super-neat but, in most things, twice as fast as I was. *Her* mother, however, was as slow as a snail -- it was infuriating to have her in the kitchen trying to "help". She was actually a pretty decent cook but so sloooooooow...." HOWEVER: how about a category called, not Preparation time, but Preparation notes? In MOST cases it would be empty. But in some cases it would say: Can be prepared several days in advance. Can be prepared a week in advance. Can be prepared in several stages over the course of several days. Must be eaten the moment it's finished. Cook must hover over the dish during its entire preparation. Fresh tomatoes must be used, canned cannot be used. Etc. I myself think that this would be MOST useful -- Julia has a brief note in HER recipes that says: Can be done ahead to this point, or some such. Trust me, even a *very* experienced cook such as myself can sometimes make major mistakes in trying to mentally judge the time for preparing a new recipes. So I think that if *I* would find it useful, others would too.Hayford Peirce 13:20, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

I agree, a notes section will definitely be useful. --Todd Coles 19:56, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

What next?

We can include a link to the Template:Nutrition in the CZ:Recipes. Supten Sarbadhikari 21:33, 25 February 2008 (CST)

I added the recipe from Portuguese cod casserole (bacalhau à Gomes de Sá) to the page so we can have an example to tweak and find an ideal format. --Todd Coles 22:51, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Links

I think we should have links throughout not only articles, but subpages and recipes as well. Linking the words "mince" and "sautee" would be very helpful to people like me who do not always know exactly what is meant... --Larry Sanger 14:20, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Easy to do, Monsieur le Patron! Hayford Peirce 14:25, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

It'd be awesome if we programmed the wiki to work like NY Times pages. Double-click on ANY unlinked word and it opens a new window to a dictionary definition. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/business/18cnd-stox.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin for an example and to try it. Stephen Ewen 15:29, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Here's another suggestion, one that *I* would be capable of carrying out, hehe. We create an article called Cooking terms or some such. Then we start writing brief definitions, arranged alphabetically within that article. Ie,

• Mince—to chop very finely with a knife; generally vegetables but also meat. In British English, "mince" also means "ground meat".
• Sauté—to fry in bla bla bla....
• Zeste—the outer part of the peel of citrus fruits etc.

Okay, that's Part One. (We would only add a new definition as it was used in an actual recipe article.) Part Two is to create Redirects for *every* item in the list. So if Larry clicks on the mince link, it takes him automatically to the Cooking terms article. Then, using his native intelligence, he scrolls down to wherever the definition is lurking. This, I think, would be less work than creating a brand new article for each and every item, particularly since most of these articles would then consist of a mere couple of sentences. Comments? Or, if you speak French, Comment? Hayford Peirce 20:07, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

My first thought is that this is a good idea. I think it would be difficult to write articles about slicing and dicing - they seem like they would be more like dictionary entries. Another thought would be to make it a catalog off of the cooking article. --Todd Coles 20:16, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Sure. It really doesn't matter *where* it lives. Just as long as the Redirect links take you there.... Hayford Peirce 20:26, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

To do list

Ok, I'm going to try and layout and organize what I think needs to still be done to this page to get it ready to go. Feel free to add, remove, complete a step, etc.

1. Page needs to be cleaned up - mainly removing the commentary to the talk page so we can have a clear idea as to what the page layout will look like.

2. Come to a consensus as to what headings should be included within a recipe template. For each heading, write a brief description for how they should be formatted.

3. Adopt a recipe template. Post an example on the page. Write instructions for it's usage.

4. Finish polishing the "general editing guidelines."

5. Remove techniques list from the page (Especially if we're going to use the linking method describe above, I don't think there is need to have them listed here.)

Todd Coles 20:34, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Those are all good suggestions. I'll let you do what you think is necessary, then I'll chip in with comments or suggestions if necessary. Hayford Peirce 20:53, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

I think we're pretty close to done on 2 and 4, if everyone agrees? Also, I think we'll just put the template in a holding pattern until Robert gets the font issues worked out with the new skin. --Todd Coles 20:25, 22 March 2008 (CDT)

Comments on general editing guidelines

• The subpage will be limited to representative, even iconic recipes and variants of dishes. This will not be an "add your own recipe" subpage.

We're going to have to consider this very carefully before making a firm decision. My understanding is: the ingredients listed in a printed and published recipe are NOT copyrightable, or subject, say to a trademark. BUT, the *instructions* cannot be directly copied. So, for instance, we could open Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Etc. at random, copy out all of the ingredients and the quantities for making, oh, blanquette de veau, BUT we would have to *substantially* rewrite her instructions for how to put everything together. Okay, this is no big deal, you say. The problem is, how many people are going to want to find a well-known, or "iconic" recipe, and then spend a lot of time formatting it and rewriting it? Tres peu, I would say. But what a lot of people *might* be doing, is what I myself have been up to for, oh, the last 25 years now: finding recipes that I liked; cooking them; modifying them according to my own whims; *correcting* them sometimes (even Great Julia nods from time to time, at least in the early editions of her books); and then eventually setting them down in computer form for *my own* collection of recipes. The recipes that I have so far put into CZ, or the photo galleries of various items that I've cooked, have, in fact, come directly from WordPerfect recipes that I have converted to RTF and then reformatted for CZ requirements. In a very real sense, therefore, the recipes I've put in here *are* my recipes, even though the Bolognese sauce, for instance, is about 90 to 95 percent Marcella Hazan in terms of ingredients and technique, but about 95% rewritten by me. The point of all this, therefore, is that I don't think we want to ban out of hand *other* people putting in their own recipes. Otherwise we may never get any additional ones. I am, however, on this matter very much open to suggestions and discussions with others.... Bon appetit! Hayford Peirce 19:56, 19 February 2008 (CST)

FWIW, and please consider this just one more opinion, I am inclined to agree with Hayford here. I suspect that the rule proposed here would mean that we would have very few recipes--and in that case, what's the point of a recipes subpage/subproject? On the other hand, I think it depends on how the rule is interpreted. For example, what does the rule imply about what recipes we may include for meat loaf? If it means that we can only have some famous chef's recipe, or the Joy of Cooking recipe, we are clearly limiting ourselves. But does the rule imply that? I don't know. --Larry Sanger 12:11, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

I think that this is one of those cases in which we should just let the situation play itself out within a set of rather flexible rules and see what happens. Obviously, I have a certain interest in food and recipes; many others do also. But I don't see it as my life's work over the next two years as taking all the recipes that I already have on my computer and transforming them into CZ articles with annotated recipes: if I wanted to go to all that trouble, I would just try to sell it as a manuscript to the good people at Knoft who have published Julia Child and Marcella Hazan. I'll certainly put in *some* stuff, as my whimsy leads me, but not hundreds and hundreds. On the other hand, what is to say that three other people might join CZ tomorrow whose goal would be to put in as many recipes as they can? There are, I gather, thousands of people right now putting recipes into blogs and foodie sites all over the Net -- some of them might well end up here. So I think that we want to be able to eventually have a "Beef/Meatloaf" Header/Subheader/ with maybe half a dozen different recipes under it. There may well be a Joy of Cooking, plus an old Fanny Farmer, two different versions from James Beard, three French versions (also listed under Terrines, cold), one from me, one from Noel, and a particularly tasty kangeroo version from Aleta. All of them, of course, should be suitably and correctly attributed, just as, I think, I have already done with the Bolognese sauce recipe, where I write at some point in the article that the following recipe is basically that of Marcella Hazan (see footnotes), with modifications by me, and that it also meets the general specifications of the Italian Council on Spaghetti Sauce or whatnot. It wouldn't be hard for every additional recipe to have at least something similar, even if it's nothing more than, "Here's a recipe for meatloaf that my old granny used to make in her wood-burning stove." Hayford Peirce 12:35, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

I don't know what the original intent of that guideline was when it was written, but here's my take. My worries are that we could end up having 25 recipes posted for marinara sauce, with only subtle differences (recipe A uses more garlic than recipe B), and I think that is something we want to avoid. Having multiple recipes, that are representative of the various ways you can cook a dish is important - it shows the reader that the dish can be made in several distinct manners. But I do feel that all the recipes for a particular dish should be distinct. Recipes from both Emeril or grandma are valuable. --Todd Coles 19:41, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Well, yes. I'm glad you clarified that. As you say, a recipe that uses more garlic than another doesn't make the cut. There should be *distinct* differences between the different recipes. This is a clear-cut case of where a majestrial Editor would be useful. He/she would simply say, "No, that new recipe will not be permitted. Period. End of discussion." Lacking Editors for the moment, I imagine that if the case *does* arise, enough interested parties will hash it over (groan) and reach some sort of consensus on it. Hayford Peirce 20:59, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

• Recipe subpages shall not editable without prior discussion and agreement of a food editor, or in his or her absence, interested authors.

Yes, I think this is vital. Suppose I *do* find the original Paul Bocuse recipe (iconic, even) for, let's say poached salmon with sorrel sauce (maybe that's the three Troisgros Brothers' recipe, but it is, or used to be, pretty iconic). If I go to the trouble to copy it, rewrite it so that it becomes original, etc., etc., then put it into CZ, I sure don't want Ro, hehe, coming along and changing the butter to duck fat or the white wine to Bourbon. [That should be 'Reau', surely? - Ro Thorpe 11:59, 23 February 2008 (CST)]

Rôt or Reaux, now that I think of it.... I really don't think this will ever be a problem at CZ, but we should be clear about this matter from the start. (It seems strange, but of all the *hundreds* of article I worked on at WP and kept on my watchlist, I would say that the Mayonnaise article was and still is the most vandalized. Go figger....) Hayford Peirce 19:56, 19 February 2008 (CST)

I would agree here as well. In fact, I would say recipes are more like pictures than like encyclopedia articles; so it would make sense to let people sign them and take credit for them. The notion that a recipe's ingredients (temperature, etc.) can be edited a la wiki wholly misrepresents how recipes are created. They are created in kitchens, not in wikis, and since kitchens are very particular things--just as cameras are--it in a way misrepresents the facts to the reader not to credit the recipes to their creators. Again, encyclopedia articles are another matter entirely.

Indeed, on further thought, why should anyone other than the contributor of a recipe have the right to edit it--even a food editor--unless the person had actually gone to the trouble of preparing the dish according to the recipe, and then tested out the specific thing changed? Since I imagine few people will go to that trouble (30 minutes-3 hours just to test out a one recipe edit or two?), the only person who will be justified in editing the recipe would be its original author. If someone wants to edit an existing recipe, he or she should get permission from the person who contributed it, I suspect--or else simply contribute a brand new recipe. And then we need to have a sensible but efficient and non-divisive way to decide which of possibly many recipes to keep.

More good points from Larry, here -- I can see that he has really thought it through! I think that what will happen, presuming that we get other knowledgeable folks interested in this aspect of the project, is that in the talk subpage of one of the recipes we'll get a comment from someone saying, "Are you *really* using two sticks of butter to make that sauce beurre blanc? My Larousse Gastronomique says to use at least 4 sticks, and the last time that *I* made it, I ended up using 5 sticks." So, assuming that I was the one who put that recipe there in the first place, I might well smite my brow and say, "By yimmy, yes! I mistyped, I *did* mean to say 5 sticks of butter." Or I might reply that, gee, I just made it again last night and it worked fine with 2 sticks for me. Just how *thick* is the sauce you're making, etc. etc." And the recipe might eventually end up with a footnote, or an introductory paragraph saying that the quantity of butter used can vary greatly, primarily depending on how thick you want the sauce to be. And various authorities could be cited. In any case, I doubt if we will be in a position before a long, long time, in which we are so inundated with variations of the same recipe that we have to wonder which ones should be kept. As a matter of fact, take a look at the Mai tai article -- I put in *seven* different recipes, one below each other. That's *one* way to handle it, particularly for simple stuff like cocktails. Hayford Peirce 12:48, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Frankly, I don't think we should be using a wiki for this at all, but we don't have the money or motivated volunteers to make the sort of changes to the software that would need to be made... --Larry Sanger 12:11, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

If it gets placed on a subpage, it can always be locked for editing. --Robert W King 12:18, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

I don't think locking is the answer - we have a virtually vandalism free environment here and I think it will be easy enough for authors in the workgroup to monitor changes to recipes. Perhaps I'm naive about that though. And also, I think discussion about "I made your recipe and it sucked!" should be strongly discouraged. My feelings on this are that we are an educational resource, not a cookbook, and we are merely giving examples of recipes. Sure, I expect these recipes to get some usage at some point, but if you try it and don't think there is enough butter for your taste, just add more butter the next time you cook it and don't worry about how it reads on here. Like Hayford said earlier, everyone finds a base recipe, uses it, and then modifies it to their own tastes. --Todd Coles 19:41, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Well, I'd say our identity is more or less limited by what counts as reference material. Cookbooks are reference works, but not necessarily educational resources. As to locking--no, because that would prevent the original author from editing, which would make it hard to fix mistakes (as per Hayford's worry). --Larry Sanger 19:49, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Template discussion

Ingredients 9 pieces dried (salt) cod 3 kg peeled potatoes 2 cloves garlic 5 eggs olive oil chopped parsley olives Preparation Boil the cod, potatoes and eggs, having cut the cod in strips and removed skin and bones. Slice the peeled potatoes with the eggs. Sauté in olive oil, with wheels of sliced onion and chopped garlic until the onion is yellow. Alternate layers of cod, potato, egg and onion in casserole dish. Bake in oven. When done, sprinkle with grated parsley and olives to taste and serve. Categories - Seafood, European cuisine Related recipes - Insert related recipe here

Okay, here's another example, with somewhat more explicit details, although I've added your *excellent* headers around the top and bottom:

A recipe for Bolognese sauce The following recipe was inspired by that detailed by Marcella Hazen in her iconic book but has been modified in several small ways and has been completely rewritten. It is, however, well within the classic definition of a ragù as promulgated by the Italian Academy of Cooking.

Number of servings: 12 to 16 as a first course, 6 to 8 as a main course

Time of preparation: 1 hour for initial preparation, 2 to 8 hours for final cooking; may also be done partially or wholly in advance

Difficulty: Easy to do but relatively painstaking and attention must be paid while various stages are cooked so that they do not burn

Ingredients 2 tablespoons olive oil 3 tablespoons butter 3 ounces pancetta or bacon, finely chopped 1/2 cup minced onion (1/2 medium onion, or 2 ounces) 2/3 cup minced celery (3 medium stalks, or 3 ounces) 2/3 cup minced carrot (2 medium carrots, or 3 ounces) 2 medium cloves garlic, peeled and finely minced 1/2 pound plus 2 ounces ground beef (10 ounces) 1/4 pound plus 2 ounces ground pork (6 ounces) 1/4 pound ground lamb (4 ounces) 1/2 teaspoon black pepper, altogether, plus probably a little more 1 teaspoon salt, plus a little more 1 cup whole milk 1/4 teaspoon nutmeg — plus a little more, to taste 1 cup dry white wine or 3/4 cup dry white vermouth 35 ounces canned tomatoes — whole, chopped, or crushed (1 28-ounce can plus 1/2 of a 14-ounce can, or 2-1/2 14-ounce cans) 1 medium (14-ounce) can unseasoned tomato sauce sprinkling (1/16th teaspoon) red pepper flakes, plus probably a little more 1 teaspoon sugar 1/2 dry cup red wine 1 cup water, plus more as the sauce cooks, in ½ cup increments Preparation Chop the pancetta by hand; pulse the onion, celery, and carrots in the food processor until fairly fine but not mushy. Heat the oil and butter in a large casserole and cook the vegetables and pancetta over medium heat for 2 or 3 minutes. Mince the garlic in the food processor, add to the vegetables, and stir another minute. Add the meats, the salt, and 1/4 teaspoon of the 1/2 teaspoon black pepper. Raise the heat to high and cook, stirring, until the meat has lost its red color. Add the milk and cook until all the liquid has bubbled away. Be very careful not to let the mixture burn. Add the nutmeg and white wine and cook until the liquid has completely evaporated. Once again, be very careful not to let it burn. Pulse the tomatoes (if necessary) in the food processor, then add to the pot, along with the sugar, the red wine, another 1/4 teaspoon of black pepper, the tomato sauce, a tiny bit of red pepper, and the water. Taste carefully for more salt, pepper, and nutmeg. Bring to a simmer, then place on a heat diffuser, reduce the heat, and cook uncovered at the barest simmer for 3 to 8 hours, stirring from time to time, and adding water from time to time. Don’t let it burn! Do not remove any oil that rises to the surface — stir it back in. Cook down to a nice consistency. The longer the cooking the better the sauce, apparently, at least up to 8 hours — after that there may be a point of diminishing returns. Serve on buttered pasta with Parmesan cheese. Categories: Pasta, Sauces, Italian cuisine Related recipes: Tagliatelle

I could certainly live with that format, although I think it ought to be a little bit *wider*....

In fact, I think that this is a major step forward.... Hayford Peirce 23:07, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

I took out the width syntax from your table. We should probably keep it variable depending on the content. Either that, or just make the box almost as large as the screen width by default. I can do some pretty basic layout type stuff, but we might want to grab Robert and get him to give us a nice, polished template for this once we get a firmer grasp on what we ant. --Todd Coles 23:19, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Righto, I figured it wouldn't be hard to change the width. As you say, we can always try to rope in Robert at some point. Let me take another look at it tomorrow and see what it looks like then.... Hayford Peirce 23:59, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

I'd put the ingredients section in another box inside that's a slightly different color. And possibly a graphical representation for time. And a graphical difficulty rating. And a more visible number of servings. Hell, I'll just make up something here in a few minutes. --Robert W King 12:00, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Robert, see the discussion page for comments from Todd and me about time and difficulty....Hayford Peirce 12:12, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

I know there's some debate over it, but the content isn't so much as an issue for me (as I don't cook), but I can easily implement a template that allows such flexibility to be determined by the actual authors, so in the regard of what the actual time and difficulty values are per recipie, they are irrelevant to me. What is relevant is that I add that capability to be determined to the template. Do you agree or disagree? --Robert W King 12:27, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

So far there's just Todd and me who have discussed this. If you *do* add them to the template, would it be easy to take them out later if the consensus is that they shouldn't be there? I'm all for having as much information as possible. In which case, why don't you add a Special Equipment thingee too. This would be used (if people agree) only for stuff like: 30-gallon pot; electric fan to dry duck's skin; 200 champagne glasses, etc. etc. Otherwise the assumption is that the cook has the normal kitchenware available. Hayford Peirce 12:43, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

It's easy to add or remove anything. --Robert W King 12:45, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Robert, when you get the template figured out the way you want it, can you post it here so we can discuss it? --Todd Coles 20:04, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

yea.--Robert W King 21:44, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

More general guidelines

Does anyone have any ideas for general guidelines that we might have missed? --Todd Coles 14:28, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

regarding the 1 or 2 different ingredient policy

instead of disallowing the recipes that vary by one or 2 ingredients, why not just have a section at the bottom of the "recipe article" saying some varient ingredients.

For example,

"In some recipes for baking salmon, instead of using only butter and lemon, mayonaise may be used to try to seal in... etc etc"

I don't know - just the extreme, not allowing policy seems, well, harsh and I think a middle ground could be found. Also you could have external links to variants of the same dish.

Thoughts? Tom Kelly 21:27, 22 March 2008 (CDT)

first impression of policy

It feels a bit too much like ownership (not allowing editing)- that is for a website, not a wiki. I think we should definitely allow varients somehow. and the not editable by anyone else... I just would like to avoid drama later. I think there should be some serious discussion about the policies. Maybe users could submit their versions signed by their name... I don't know - recipes are so unique to the chef. It seems problematic. Thoughts? Tom Kelly 21:45, 22 March 2008 (CDT)

Yes, I agree that not allowing editing is against the spirit of a wiki, however, I think that more drama would be caused by allowing rampant editing of recipes, because as you say, recipes are unique to the chef and will surely result in feelings of ownership. To combat this, it might be a good idea to leave the "Notes" section open to editing to add this type of information.. for example, the Joy of Cooking recipe for sauerbraten at the end says "Some cooks add raisins, catsup, and ground gingersnaps). This would allow for minor variants to be mentioned, without "ruining" someones recipe. And obviously more informative to the reader as they know there are choices.

I want to note that there has been serious discussion about the policies involving recipes spread over numerous pages. We're not trying to willy-nilly throw something together here. --Todd Coles 22:39, 22 March 2008 (CDT)

Tom, there has been a *ton* of discussion about this over various sites and what it comes down to is this: It's not so much that I submit *my* yeast bread recipe and that it is sacrosanct and that it should always be known as *my* recipe; it is rather that in the recipe I've submitted I say *1* tablespoon of kosher salt. Then you, Todd, Aleta, Larry, or Joe Blow comes along and, without any discussion except maybe in the Summary line, where you write "too much salt", changes it to 1/2 tb. salt. In this lies *madness*! Are the three, four, five, or eventually, I hope, 200 people who are interested in cooking and recipes, going to get into endless WP-type revert wars about how many tb. of salt should be in a bread recipe? I repeat: madness, madness, madness. Let the first person (me in this case) put in *7* different recipes for Mai tai cocktails, say, including what purports to be the original Don the Beachcomber one. If *you*, say, disagree with that recipe, bring it up on the discussion page, or in an email to me, but *don't* just go in and change it! If there are 7 recipes for mai tais, there is plenty of room for an 8th -- put it in, as long as it has *some* substantive difference, and call it "mai tai recipe that I used to drink at the Kon Tiki Wobble & Stagger in El Paso. We're not saying that *other* recipes can't be added -- just that we shouldn't be editing each other's recipes except for (query in advance) obvious, or even subtle, mistakes.... Hayford Peirce 23:23, 22 March 2008 (CDT)

Ok, how can we make the policy appear a little more open and inviting. It feels like the first recipe sorta... "wins" which would discourage others from joining the project. Or is it only me that thinks that policy could be tweaked for better PR and a more wiki stance? I don't want to see an editing other recipes... but then maybe the individual recipes should not appear in the article itself, but in the subpages. I need to think about this matter a while before making too many comments; plus, I will be quite busy for the next 6 months and hopefully (for my sake) will not spend too much time on the wiki. Tom Kelly 13:48, 23 March 2008 (CDT)