Jump to content

Talk:Cookie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.216.40.73 (talk) at 16:14, 2 December 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconFood and drink Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Template:Archive box collapsible

==Scottish meaning of cookie== and thats the way the cookie crumbels I am 38 and Scottish and I've never heard of the supposed Scottish meaning of cookie being a plain bun before, whatever Brittania Online says - given the source I would guess that it was probably once common usage in some part of Scotland at least, but it certainly isn't so now, unless it's used by older people in secret when there's no-one younger within earshot. The only usage I am aware of here is the same as that in England, which is that it is used as part of the name of certain types of 'biscuit' (as we call them) which were partly marketed on their 'American-ness' when introduced here, such as the 'chocolate chip cookie'. Scatterkeir (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Round shape

Why is it specified that cookies are "always round"? This seems quite odd to me because cookies come in innumerable shapes, that's what we have cookie cutters for, and don't tell me you've never seen square cookies cut from a sheet before. -- 65.6.62.47 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I have almost a hundred cookie cutters in a drawer, and very few of them are round. I wonder what the editor would have made of gingerbread men. (Hmm: that change was made by a person that appears to have been cited repeatedly for vandalism, so perhaps it was deliberate nonsense.)
Thanks to User:Rmhermen for fixing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to throw out that it was indeed deliberate nonsense, the IP is that of a highschool, so it would make sense that it is repeatedly cited for vandalism. Anyway, thanks for changing it back, I hope you don't get any more trouble from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.108.229 (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just getting the munchies and i had a thought. I wanted to know where cookies came from. This web site great!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.38.34 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KK I totally think u r so right. And yea i have seen square-ular cookies b4. U ROCK!! from ROXI! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.109.12 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source

There's an effort to develop a definition for cookie here that might be a useful source for this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smarties?

In the United Kingdom the term cookie often just refers to chocolate chip cookies or a variation (e.g. cookies containing oats, Smarties)

I know of no one that would call smarties either a cookies or biscuits, its a chocolate snack, or do i need to meet new people?62.30.54.79 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is referring to cookies that contain Smarties, rather than Smarties themselves. AJCham2097 (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sense of 'cookie' in the UK tends to refer to a certain type of huge 'biscuit'/'cookie' which is sold in a bag rather than a packet due to the size, and which are softer than the 'biscuits' we normally have. The bag would contain perhaps around three of these cookies, compared to maybe twenty much smaller biscuits in a packet. The Smarties cookies are an example of these. Scatterkeir (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's original research, and we get told off for that here, but I recall seeing both the small cookies and the large cookies, which can vary from being softer/the same/ or harder than a biscuit. Generally, cookies are the things with "bits" in (chocolate chips, "Smarties", fruit and such like) where as (sweet) biscuits are the ones with nothing in or some kind of topping (e.g. chocolate). --91.105.75.183 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oils vs. Fats

I can't edit this article in its current protected state. But I have a thought that a particular part of the "Description" section is worded a bit inaccurately.

A general theory of cookies may be formulated this way. Despite its descent from cakes and other sweetened breads, the cookie in almost all its forms has abandoned water as a medium for cohesion. Water in cakes serves to make the base (in the case of cakes called "batter"[2]) as thin as possible, which allows the bubbles – responsible for a cake's fluffiness – to form better. In the cookie, the agent of cohesion has become some form of oil. Oils, whether they be in the form of butter, egg yolks, vegetable oils or lard are much more viscous than water and evaporate freely at a much higher temperature than water. Thus a cake made with butter or eggs instead of water is far denser after removal from the oven.

Oils in baked cakes do not behave as soda in the finished result. Rather than evaporating and thickening the mixture, they remain, saturating the bubbles of escaped gases from what little water there might have been in the eggs, if added, and the carbon dioxide released by heating the baking powder. This saturation produces the most texturally attractive feature of the cookie, and indeed all fried foods: crispness saturated with a moisture (namely oil) that does not sink into it.

This is a great description for a cookie, but I don't think it's proper to say that the agent of cohesion is "some form of oil." Butter, egg yolks, liquid oil, and lard are all mentioned as forms of oil. I have never heard of this before. From what I've seen, both in a culinary and a nutritional sense, these items are usually referred to as "fats."

I think most people will interpret oil as only those fat-based items that are fully liquid at room temperature. And I don't think oil, under that definition, is used in cookies very much at all. If I'm not mistaken, that would make a very flat, greasy cookie. Many cookies, at least the ones familiar to me as an American, rely heavily on a mixture of butter and sugar that has been "creamed."

So, what I'm saying is, I think in the quoted section, nearly every instance of "oil" should be replaced with "fat." I'd do it myself if I could.

Vanillatoast (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct; these substances are generally called "fats", not "oils".
My complaint with this article goes a little deeper. Looking at the last two paragraphs of the "Description" section, which begin with "A general theory of cookies may be formulated this way", one question springs to mind: Who formulated a "general theory of cookies" this way? If it was the author, then these two paragraphs represent Original Research and violate a major Wikipedia policy. If it was some published authority, other than the author, the article should cite that authority to enable independent verification.
yoyo (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

citations?

the only citations in this article are for britannica and merriam-webster. Neither of which go into any kind of detail like the article does. There's some good data here, but where'd it come from? Pete Iriarte (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A standardized definition of the term cookie is needed.....

because it is critical with the coverage and exclusion of the cereal-based products--222.64.20.206 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A topic of....

List of cookie brands is needed--222.64.20.206 (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come up with some text, and we'll see. Mintrick (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Fried things are not cookies

Krusticki and rosettes are NOT cookies. Theyre at best a pastry. Calling these things cookies would mean that funnel cakes and zeppoles are also cookies, they are not. The way they are made cotradicts the definition of cookies on this page as well as on their respective pages (ex: for rosettes, they are defined as a pastry made with a batter). removal of this "type" of cookie should be considered. If one simply fries cookie dough, that is not a cookie, just as if you boiled a potato it does not make chips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinithehat (talkcontribs) 03:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the fried cookies. Vinithehat (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in the origins

The information box at the top of the page says that cookies are originally from the USA and Canada, but the section on origins describes how they actually originated in seventh century Persia as well as the path that eventually took them to North America.

I'm far from an expert in cookies, but it's obvious that the information in one of these parts is incorrect (probably the info box). Can someone who actually knows about this verify the information and make the necessary changes, please? 75.64.204.13 (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Definition

Wikipedia: "a cookie is a small, flat-baked treat, containing milk, flour, eggs, and sugar, etc."

1. A "treat"? That's very subjective. In the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, a cookie is not a treat but a small cake: it is "a small flat or slightly raised cake".

2. Cookies don't always contain milk and egg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.205.199.190 (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]