Talk:Sponge cake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

off-topic questions and answers[edit]

Only know I have a problem in baking real cake.....

Can anyone tell me why everytime when I bake a cake, it will either collapses before I take it out from the oven or while it cools down on a rail? If the temperature is adjusted higher, it will get burnt before raising. But if adjusted lower, it will not raise. I follow exactly the instruction and temperature of the oven but the timing is always wrong. Apart from the shape, it really tastes good though. I wish I can make a perfect cake. Please give advice.

from a Life-time-cake failure

  • You should put your cake on a lower shelf and highten the temperature slightly if your over isn't fan assisted. If it is, keep it in slightly longer. Use more flour if you don't mind substituting a little taste for a little more stability. But remember, the taste is generally a lot more important!
Traditional advice (granny always did this) close windows and doors of kitchen to avoid drafts Francis Davey (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • At least with the simplest Nordic sponge of "eggs, sugar, flour in equal volumes", slight convex shape of the final product hints too little flour* or oven opened too early. When its about finished, its not too sensitive anymore, as the usual way to test the donedness is to sick a match into the cake to see if any dough sticks.
I think it's a general wisdom to add slightly heaped measure of the flour compared to sugar and eggs.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.83.191 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that no complains like "this is not a recipes forum " ...

I do not mind this kind of question here. It is a clear example of the stupid decision of who knows who to not include recipes in food entries. They are deleted in seconds after written, by "curators" who are very skilled to program alarms when changed, but many times totally ignorant about the subject. They argue that Wikipedia is not a recipe book. I understand it as the entry should not only contain a recipe, but the history and an organized account of the evolution and variants of the ingredients, but adding a recipe according to that should not be banned. I is very stupid to place how something is done in confusing prose instead of a concrete recipe, that includes the source, which may lack of bibliographic sources as everybody comes from a culture and a family that has their own traditional dishes.
I won't collaborate with wikipedia anymore until this stupid censorship disappears.
For who placed the question: I may add to the given answers that the quality of the ingredients is very important. The eggs are crucial in this recipe. Avoid those from "food factories" where poor hens are saturated with hormones and worse quality food including their excrement. If you can buy real organic ones, it is better.
They should be at room temperature, separate the whites from the yolks, do not let even a drop of yolk in the whites or it will not become foamy. Some people use a dash of salt or tartaric acid, but I had to use any of such substances. The room should not be cold.
Beat very well, whit a beater with many wires if done by hand or with a good beater, to incorporate more air. Mix the yolks whit the sugar and the flour apart, while the electric beater is working. The egg whites should form peaks and be very firm. When ready incorporate very carefully in evolving movements the yolks mixture, avoiding to break the egg whites bubbles. Pour it carefully in a tin mold for better results and prepared with paper damped with oil. Immediately introduce it in a preheated oven (160-180 Celsius). DO NOT OPEN the oven until it is done, or any draft will shrink all the formed bubbles. It depends on the quantity and the kind of recipient you use to bake the time, but you will smell a "cake smell" when this happens. When I use this batter for tiramisu, not for lady fingers, but a more or less 1cm thick (a 1.5cm height tin mold) it takes like 15 min in an altitude about 2000 meters above the sea level.
If your oven has a glass window, you will see the beautiful golden color when ready. It is normal that after cooling the bread slightly loose some height. If you are going to make a roll, you should cut the sides because they are crusty and may break. And about an inch on to pledge in the side where you will start to roll, "glue" this part with the fill. Place the bread sheet in a cotton fabric (not of the bath towel like) until it is slightly warm (not hot) to start rolling with the help of the kitchen towel. (I am not native speaker sorry)
If you are going to make a tiramisu, then just place it in a cooling rack until you can handle to cut at the size of the container of the tiramisu.
For higher breads it may take a little more time, but do not desperate drafts not opening the oven until the signs that it is cooked are shown, after 15 min. more or less depending on the mentioned variables.
Look what kind of protest I am doing by placing here so many details, just because I am tired that vandals self-called "wikipedian curators" are systematically deleting every recipe from articles about meals. Otherwise I could include a better written recipe, explaining more clear than here how and why each process is done.
Wikipedia should not be an encyclopedic dictionary, but a real encyclopedia containing EVERY knowledge about a subject. That includes recipes in meal articles. Do not be confused "Wikipedia is not a recipe book" is not the same that "Wikipedia is NOT JUST a recipe book" Agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.166.82 (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

merger?[edit]

Shouldn't this be merged with sponge (food)? Skittle 23:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed unless someone has a cite[edit]

Although simple to make, Victoria sponge recipes are notoriously sensitive to cooking times and temperatures. As such, oven manufacturers often use a Victoria sponge recipe to test their ovens. [citation needed]

Citation found. Added the following back into the article: Although simple to make, Victoria sponge recipes are notoriously sensitive to cooking times and temperatures. As such, oven manufacturers often use a Victoria sponge recipe to test their ovens.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.213.69 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Paper wrapped cake is but a Hong Kong adaptation of the western sponge cake. There is nothing particularly notable about this variant. It is made from a very light sponge dough, which is characteristically baked in grease proof paper and sold in individual-sized portions. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's own article states that it is a Chiffon cake and not a sponge cake. Just leave it be for now unless you want to suggest a merger with Chiffon cake.LiPollis (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not entirely a sponge cake. Is like requesting a merge of hamburgers and steak. Is different enough. Benjwong (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, then merge it to chiffon cake. I'd like to leave the tage there for further comments. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Paper wrapped cake where it is. It is a discrete food item and merging it would be like merging Cupcake into Cake. This is a discrete food item prepared and consumed by the largest culinary tradition in the world and impoverishing our content in an Anglo-centered manner does not enhance our project for our users. Badagnani (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be merged with "Pound cake"

Victoria Sponge categorization[edit]

You might have to forgive my American ignorance, but as far as I can tell, a Victoria Sponge isn't a sponge cake at all. It's a pound cake, almost invariably produced either by the creaming method (the first one described in the article) or some variation of the two-stage method (the second). Would it make sense to move this section to a different article? Patrickcolvin (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The term "pound cake" seems to be much commoner in the U.S. than in Britain. The term "sponge" is not confined to "fatless sponges" here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.79.118 (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
American cookbooks and cooking schools tend to classify cakes in two major taxa: butter cakes and sponge cakes. Butter cakes are so named for the large quantity of butter used as a base of the batter, and sponge cakes are made with an egg foam. Does anyone here know of a source that might illuminate how American and British English have come to differ on this subject? It would probably help to add a sentence or two to the article to clear up any confusion (I still haven't found a satisfactory answer to why this cake is a "sponge" across the pond but not a "sponge" here). Patrick Colvin (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure about "fatless sponges." Chiffon cakes and génoise both usually contain fat, and they're most certainly sponge cakes. Patrick Colvin (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed for many English people the Victoria Sandwich is the core example of a "sponge" cake, so this is a difference in transatlantic usage. Francis Davey (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas about how to address this linguistic issue? My main concern is that the article, as written, is confusing. The intro gives an adequate definition of the American conception of what a sponge cake is and how it is prepared, but the section on Victoria Sponge makes no mention of the differences. Patrick Colvin (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I've no idea how to clear up the confusion - its just different linguistic usage on both sides of the Atlantic. The oldest books (such as Mrs Beeton) don't seem to worry too much about classification and, insofar as there are classifications, then there aren't two taxa (eg "rich cakes" might be a heading). A long discussion on this subject with a Jewish friend from Illinois suggests that this is partly inspired by Jewish dietary laws, but I have no hard knowledge on that point. It is certainly true that good books on baking distinguish between "butter sponges" on the one hand which are essentially produced via creaming butter and adding to whisked egg white - that is how the Victoria Sandwich works, and "whisked sponges" on the other hand which are what you would call a "sponge", with the admission that the latter are "sponges proper" as one book describes it. But you beat egg whites in cakes we would never call sponges (like seed cake) because the texture is not spongey. The "Glasgow Cookery Book" which is a traditional book for students training in cookery does not classify the Victoria Sandwich as a sponge. Francis Davey (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Article unfairly weighted towards British sponges?[edit]

In Australia, "sponge cake" usually refers to a fatless sponge (the only fat being the egg yolks). The intro to this article fairly definitively states that "sponge cake is a cake based on flour...sugar, butter and eggs." I wonder if that is technically correct, as a "sponge" doesn't always have to include butter, unless you're in the UK. The article also says "Cake made using the foam method is not a classed as a sponge cake in the UK, it is a foam cake, which is quite different," suggesting that the article is primarily about British sponges, and not what people classify as sponge cakes worldwide. A definition that is more inclusive and less anglocentric would be ideal. Sadiemonster (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Gas Installation Technology By Roy Treloar Published by Blackwell Publishing, 2005 ISBN 1405118806, 9781405118804.