Talk:Recipe: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Supten Sarbadhikari |
imported>Chris Day |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:::::Can I hire you a cleaning lady to destroy those? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 21:13, 3 March 2008 (CST) | :::::Can I hire you a cleaning lady to destroy those? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 21:13, 3 March 2008 (CST) | ||
Perhaps a reference to ''receipt'' may be included? The stub [[receipt]] doesn't have any citations either! [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten Sarbadhikari]] 22:15, 3 March 2008 (CST) | Perhaps a reference to ''receipt'' may be included? The stub [[receipt]] doesn't have any citations either! [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten Sarbadhikari]] 22:15, 3 March 2008 (CST) | ||
Has there been any discussion on how this will be organised? Should recipes be subpages of the article (that is not the case right now)? The reason I wonder this is that there are often regional variations on the same dish? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 17:43, 15 March 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 16:43, 15 March 2008
masochist?
That's fer sure! I'll see tomorrow if I can put any of my own fairly dogmatic ideas into it.... Hayford Peirce 21:46, 2 March 2008 (CST)
Hayford, do Brits really call recipes "receipts"? I've never heard that before. --Larry Sanger 15:35, 3 March 2008 (CST)
- I spent 8 months in London in 1968 and never heard it. I have a couple of British "cookery" books and I'm pretty sure that they don't either. It wuz Aleta who wrote the article -- maybe it's a Digger thing.... Hayford Peirce 16:30, 3 March 2008 (CST)
- Maybe, but my Oxford Dictionary just says it's 'arch.' Ro Thorpe 16:36, 3 March 2008 (CST)
- Was that "archaic", Ro, or "archetypal"? ;)
- Haven't you read any British literature, Sanger? And the rest of you? P)
- You can put "formerly" if you want, because I haven't lived in England in...mumble...mumble...years, but older folks of a certain class always said "receipt" back in the day.
- AND, FYI, I just checked my American dictionary. Definition no. 1 for 'receipt'=(drum roll) "RECIPE"!
- Aleta Curry 20:33, 3 March 2008 (CST)
- Even a geezer can learn new tricks -- I just checked the only 2 dictionaries I could reach (I'm rebuilding my office and my reference books are scattered around 4 rooms in hard-to-access places) and, to my astonishment, receipt actually means...RECIPE! Even the really majestrial M-W International Unabridged of 1932, second edition, says so. And that's the only book in the world that I actually trust.... So I'll do a rewrite. Mille pardons, chere demoiselle! Hayford Peirce 21:05, 3 March 2008 (CST)
- Can I hire you a cleaning lady to destroy those? --Robert W King 21:13, 3 March 2008 (CST)
- Even a geezer can learn new tricks -- I just checked the only 2 dictionaries I could reach (I'm rebuilding my office and my reference books are scattered around 4 rooms in hard-to-access places) and, to my astonishment, receipt actually means...RECIPE! Even the really majestrial M-W International Unabridged of 1932, second edition, says so. And that's the only book in the world that I actually trust.... So I'll do a rewrite. Mille pardons, chere demoiselle! Hayford Peirce 21:05, 3 March 2008 (CST)
- Maybe, but my Oxford Dictionary just says it's 'arch.' Ro Thorpe 16:36, 3 March 2008 (CST)
Perhaps a reference to receipt may be included? The stub receipt doesn't have any citations either! Supten Sarbadhikari 22:15, 3 March 2008 (CST)
Has there been any discussion on how this will be organised? Should recipes be subpages of the article (that is not the case right now)? The reason I wonder this is that there are often regional variations on the same dish? Chris Day (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2008 (CDT)