User:Todd Coles/Sandbox

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search

Oklahoma Culture section scratch pad

  • Music - Country (Vince Gill, Toby Keith, Reba McIntire, Garth Brooks, Carrie Underwood, Chet Atkins(?))
       - Rock (The Flaming Lips, The All-American Rejects)
       - Folk (Woody Guthrie)
       - Red Dirt
  • Sports - University of Oklahoma football (7 national titles), Oklahoma State (red headed stepchild, but strong basketball/wrestling/baseball following)
        - Oklahoma Redhawks (Texas Rangers AA team, OKC), Tulsa Drillers (Colorado Rockies AA team), OKC Blazers (Central Hockey League, 2 championships), Tulsa Oilers (CHL)
        - Hosting of the New Orleans Hornets for 2 years, possibility of relocation of Seattle Supersonics
        - Southern Hills Country Club in Tulsa - numerous PGA Championships and US Opens
  • Attractions - Western Heritage Museum,
  • State/National Parks
  • Festivals

Recipe template test

Spaghetti with a realy really long sauce name that takes up the whole damn screen

Yields

3-6

servings

Ingredients
 
  • Noodles—Ok, what will this look like if we have to type in a somewhat long description of an ingredient, as some recipes occasionally do?
  • Sauce
  • Meatballs
Preparation:
  1. boil water—ditto for the actual instructions. we will first write a lengthy description of how the water is poured into the pot, the pot is put on the stove, the heat is turned on. A lid is put into place, then the cook opens a a bottle of wine and drinks it while waiting for the water to boil. Then he finally puts the damn pasta into the water, reduces the heat, and sits down and mops his brow. There! Now what does it look like?
  2. sing a song
  3. dance a jig
  4. EAT IT
Notes:

{{{notes}}}

Categories: Pasta, Italian cuisine
Related recipes: Tagliatelle
  • I just want to point out that it's very early in production ;) --Robert W King 20:02, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
hah, I figured as much, I just wanted to test it out. Take your time man. --Todd Coles 09:55, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
What do you think? --Robert W King 10:30, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
Looks like a pretty good start. The large servings number is good but, for some dishes, spaghetti among them, there can be a distinction about whether it is served as a first course or as a main course and the number will therefore change. Hence, in the example I used for Bolognese sauce on the CZ:Recipes page I specified that under the Number of Servings header or whatever it was. What are your ideas on this? Hayford Peirce 11:33, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
I think we add a section at the end that's simply called Notes, or Preparation Notes, and this is where you could expand on something like that. And as a default, for the Number of Servings header we can make it a rule that you always consider it as a main dish, unless it is obviously a side. --Todd Coles 11:39, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
I can put a course field in there. Would that be appropriate?--Robert W King 11:43, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
I'm not so much in favor of that, but I'll defer to others opinions on that. Looks good so far though. The 2 things I've noticed so far is that 1) if the recipe name is too long, it's going to cause the servings to not line up and 2) Is there anyway to set the preparation field up so that each new step starts on a new line? and of course the servings are appearing fine now. :P --Todd Coles 11:47, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
It's just like normal wiki markup there. You can use # for numbered lists, or just use <br/> at the end of each line. And yeah, I fixed your wagon good on the servings section as soon as I saw it. --Robert W King 11:50, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
I don't think we need a Course field -- how many non-French and non-Italian ppl eat 3,4, 5-course meals? The answer for obvious appetizers, say, (which in America frequently includes what *I* would call a first course), is, in the Meta-index as Aleta calls it, simply to have an entry called Appetizers and First Courses -- then cross-reference any recipe items that would fall into this category both here and in its own alphabetical place in the Meta-index. Hayford Peirce 11:57, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
Yeah, I think that under categories we'll have some that say "Side dish" or "Dessert". Ok I have 2 more requests - Can you add into the template a commented out section on both ingredients and preparation that says something like (For each new line please begin with an # or an *)... I think using asterisks for ingredients and pound signs for prep steps would be good. Also, is there a way to set uyp the categories field and the related field to automatically link something? In other words, if I type in Italian cuisine, it automatically links it so the reader can click it and go to that particular article? --Todd Coles 12:02, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
For courses, I was going to just say use "Main" "Appetizer" "Side", etc. Again, for links just use wiki markup--it will be easier than coding it. For example, in the template you can use [[Italian cuisine]]. --Robert W King 12:05, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
  • I've looked at the page in both IE 7 and Firefox and in both cases the REALLY REALLY LONG NAME letters are too big -- not necessarily from left to right, but they're too tall: one line impinges on the one below.... Hayford Peirce 12:19, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
I saw that also. I'm trying to find the fix. --Robert W King 12:22, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
For what it's worth, they look fine here at work, using IE6. --Todd Coles 12:24, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
The text bug is officially squashed. Now it will wrap with appropriate space between lines. --Robert W King 11:12, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

servings

Have just finished the NYT Wednesday Dining section. The recipes all have something like "Yield: 4 servings" at the end. I think it makes sense to say "Yield" instead of "Serves" or "Serving" since suppose the recipe is for bread? The "Yield" would be 4 12-ounce loaves, not 48 slices or whatever.... Hayford Peirce 15:50, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

That makes more sense, since a "serving size" is arbitrary. --Todd Coles 16:36, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
Well, it's still arbitrary in the sense the Times is saying "Yield: 4 to 6 servings" BUT, it would allow for other ways of characterizing the Yield rather than just "servings" Hayford Peirce 16:49, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
Sooo what should it say? "Yields X Units"? "Yields 4-6 Pies"? I mean, that's arbitrary in itself; imagine a casserole or a lasagna; you can cut that any numerable amount of ways. --Robert W King 22:15, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. For instance, I think I'll put my recipe for Basic White Bread into the Bread article. The recipe will Yield "4 loaves of approximately 12.5 ounces each" or whatever the exact figure is. Instead of saying Yield 48 slices. Some recipes will have units other than servings, but not many. Back to "servings": I admit that we will never be be reconcile a recipe that might "Yield: 1/2 serving for Paul Bunyon, 122 servings for Jane Austin" but I think common sense, and the overall knowledge of people like us who observe what other people eat would lead us to say, "8 servings". Hayford Peirce 22:54, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
I'm still not clear on what the solution should be. Should it say "Yields X"? or "X servings"? or "Yields X Servings"? What *should* it say? --Robert W King 11:01, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
I'm going to defer to Hayford on this, but I would suggest the heading be "Yield" and then the amount entered display below it. That way the user can type "1 loaf" "2-3 servings" or whatever and it should all make sense. --Todd Coles 11:21, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
I can put "Yields" at the top of the number, then in another variable below the number have a text field so someone is free to put "servings" or "loafs" or whichever they choose.--Robert W King 11:38, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
That makes sense to me. I was just trying to introduce the possibility of having a quantity or unit that was *not* the actual number of servings. Although I imagine that as a practical matter, 99% of the time, it will be "servings" that are delineated. Hayford Peirce 11:42, 20 March 2008 (CDT)