Talk:List of culinary knife cuts
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Measurement
To bring the article in line with the other culinary knife cut articles I have translated the measurements into SI-units, while keeping the US units in parentheses. Haavard Ostermann (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Chips
Why are chips (the thicker-cut fries found in Britain) not covered here? Too working class for you to give them a French name? SpinningSpark 20:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Bizarre comment from an experienced Wikipedian. "Too working class for you" - who is the "you" that you mention here? If you want something added to the article then find a source and add it yourself! Captainllama (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's not bizarre at all. The bizarre thing is that a cut that is widely (almost universally) used in homes in my country is not a named cut. Probably the most common cut with a kitchen knife in everyday cooking. Nobody does juliennes or tournés on a daily basis. Most people probably go their whole life without ever doing them even once. And it's condescending to tell me to go and find a source. Since you had realised that I am an experienced editor, you could probably assume that I already know how to look for sources and add information to articles, and it would be a fair bet that I had already tried. The "you" I referred to is the totality of chef and foodie snobs who wouldn't be seen dead cooking or eating such a common thing (or, more, relevantly, write about it). SpinningSpark 12:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Come now, ranting (apparently) at Wikipedians for not including something which you could research and add yourself is worthy of a tenderfoot, not an experienced editor. So there's that. Then there's the notion that chip cut non-name is some kind of class warfare? And a French name is snobbery? This chip seems to be the shoulder kind.
- It's not bizarre at all. The bizarre thing is that a cut that is widely (almost universally) used in homes in my country is not a named cut. Probably the most common cut with a kitchen knife in everyday cooking. Nobody does juliennes or tournés on a daily basis. Most people probably go their whole life without ever doing them even once. And it's condescending to tell me to go and find a source. Since you had realised that I am an experienced editor, you could probably assume that I already know how to look for sources and add information to articles, and it would be a fair bet that I had already tried. The "you" I referred to is the totality of chef and foodie snobs who wouldn't be seen dead cooking or eating such a common thing (or, more, relevantly, write about it). SpinningSpark 12:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- It now transpires that the target of your ire is not fellow Wikipedians but "the totality of chef and foodie snobs". Why on earth are you haranguing them on a Wikipedia talk page? Surely your complaint would better reach your target audience if posted to, I dunno, BBC Good Food magazine or some such?
- However, you will be delighted to know I have found sources for your "working class" cut, and whaddya know it has a fancy French name. I have added it to the article. Best wishes, Captainllama (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Merci bien poisson copain. While that might indicate a shudder of distaste at the coarse argot of the lower orders I doubt it, given that the sources are from Canada and the US where, apart from being considerably less stratified and class conscious than England, what they call "chips" are known in the UK as crisps. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Mirepoix in the image
The cut labeled as "Mirepoix" in the image is incorrect. It shows cuts about an inch on a side, which disagrees with the description, and would certainly make for a bad soup base. I think the image should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottzero (talk • contribs) 14:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)