Miscellaneous desk
< May 11	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 12

Energy required for cooking food items

I need to know the energy consumed when we cook food, the answer is expected to be pegged to a common metric unit for weight in kg or litres and the energy in terms on kCal.

Need the energy values for following food items steam cooking cooking 1 kg of rice steam cooking 1 kg of pulses (dry pulses) steam cooking 1 kg of vegetable Steam cooking 1 kg of fish Steam cooking 1 kg of meat

Roasting 1 chapati (Indian bread, 50gms of wheat dough/chapati) Frying of 1 Samosa ( 30 gms of cooked potato + 40 gms of wheat dough) Frying of 1 kg of fish frying of 1 kg of meat

Every where on the internet information about energy gained from these food items is found but the information regarding energy consumed while cooking these items is nearly absent or is in very scattered manner.

Kindly request you to please share some standard information, where if not accurate, some ball point figures would also help.

Regards, Shantanu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.160.153 (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite difficult to quantify - take the simple example...cooking 1kg of pasta. The trouble is that the majority of the energy is consumed in boiling the water...how much water? Well, this guide says 1 gallon of water per pound of pasta...but goes on to say that if you don't have a measuring jug, then cover the dry pasta with two inches of water. Well, how much water is that? It depends on the container. To take an extreme - if you cooked a pound of spaghetti in a wok - you'd need much more water than if you cooked it in a tall, narrow container. The amount of energy required could vary wildly. Then add that some people like their pasta cooked 'al-dente' and some recipes call for it to be more completely cooked - and we're told that the cooking time depends on which of the 100 or so pasta shapes you're dealing with. So JUST for the pasta...it's horribly variable. I'd estimate at least an order of magnitude difference.

It's the same deal with many other foods. Let's consider frying a steak...if you have just one steak in the pan, it takes almost exactly the same amount of energy as if you have two, three or four steaks in the pan at once. So the energy cost per pound varies by about a factor of four depending on how many you're cooking...and again, we have steak in varying thicknesses and demands for the steak to be cooked rare, medium or well-done. You can also vary the speed at which the food is raised to the desired temperature - which alters the amount of exterior "sear" you get for a particular interior temperature peak. So the energy cost per pound to "cook steak" is also variable by at least an order of magnitude.

To make matters worse, you can cook in a microwave, you can pre-boil your water in a kettle, you can cook using propane, natural gas, electric induction or electric coil heaters. You can use a toaster or a toaster-oven. The efficiency with which energy turns into heat in the food item varies dramatically between these devices.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to ignore disallowed newtext when only a part of a word?

I'm trying to fix a false positive on an abuse/edit filter on another wiki. I was trying to enter some text, and it disallowed me, and I just figured out it was because part of a word included the bad word, kind of like catching "hell" in the word "hello" (the actual instance was "shit" in "shitatte" (I was entering romaji)). Question is, how do I make it so that it doesn't catch that sort of thing? I'm afraid I'm not too experienced with the coding language of the filters yet and have been sticking at present to modifying imported filters. (For reference, the filter was imported from this one: Special:AbuseFilter/285, with only the middle section (lcase) still present; it's private on our wiki, or I'd link directly to it.) (Asked here because I wasn't sure it was exactly a Wikipedia question or that it belonged at Computing.) - Purplewowies (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean shiitake, by the way? —Tamfang (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant "shitatte"—I was providing romaji for したって. Therein lies the problem. I myself was able to get around it by disabling the filter because I am an admin there, but most other users don't have that luxury. - Purplewowies (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably better asking in the wp:Village Pump, and in particular, the technical section of it. I suspect that you might need to add \b to the start and end of the regexp to force it to match to a word boundary. CS Miller (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll ask there later when I have a little more time to type it up! Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar on Wikipedia

Hi!

When I was looking at various Wikipedia articles I noticed that Wikipedia uses different grammar on different pages.

For example, the article on Florence and the Machine says that "Florence and the Machine (stylised as Florence + the Machine)[4] are an English indie rock band" [1] but the artcle for Blink-182 says "Blink-182 is an American rock band" [2].

Does Wikipedia use American English on articles that are directly relating to an American entity (band in this case) and British English for European entities?

(Intersting note, that if this is the case, "The Killers are an American rock band" [3], which would seem to against it. Thank you in Advance)

Tibbs runner (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; you got it in one. See WP:ENGVAR for the details. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A note on your note: American English uses whatever the band's name is, plural or singular, so it actually goes both ways. Mingmingla (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this is neither good American nor British English:

Florence and the Machine (stylised as Florence + the Machine)

and it is better worded as:

Florence and the Machine (styled Florence + the Machine)

Such lucidity may discommode regulars who find basic English unsatisfactory unless it is ornamented with superfluous apostrophes and are fondly remembered for immature reactions on the subject ranging from ad hominem abuses to a complaint at ANI about "grammer" (sic). 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should be clear that within Wikipedia, high standards of factual accuracy, use of language, punctuation, grammar and word choice is essential in all of our articles. We welcome experts in the field to come here and fix problems that may creep into them (such as above). HOWEVER, for informal communications such as talk pages and here on the reference desks, we merely need to communicate the facts efficiently and without belittling or humiliating our contributors - which means that detailed scrutiny of typos, spelling and grammar errors is neither needed nor welcomed. SteveBaker (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A self-styled "dabbler" at the Ref Desk who is not fondly remembered for belittling or humiliating contributors could usefully learn that under scrutiny "typos, spelling and grammar errors" are not one incomprehensible mass but are very different things. Each is curable by proper attention to what one first types, and then (presumably) bothers to check in the Wikipedia editing window before broadcasting it to the World. Is the above a dabble-welcome like the one you provided at the end of this question? 84.209.89.214 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "styled" is the right way to say it, not "stylized" or "stylized". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot. "Style" is both a verb and a noun. "Stylize" is an effort to convert the noun into a verb. But it already has a verb form, which is also "style". It's a bit like when folks say "orientate" instead of "orient", which is likewise both a noun and a verb. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Bugs, I meant what's the difference between "stylized" and "stylized"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. I think the spell-checker must have switched "stylised" to "stylized". Hence the oddity above. In any case, it appears that presenting his name as "prince" instead of "Prince" would be an example of "styled", while presenting his name with that goofy symbol would be an example of "stylized/stylised". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, "stylize" is correct and "style" is incorrect. They mean different things. Per Wiktionary, stylize means "to represent something in a particular style" whereas style means "to create or give a style". In this case, the band name is stylized to include the + sign instead of the word "and" or the & symbol, either of which would be the normal way of representing the name. Having the + sign instead stylizes the name, it gives the name a visual style. Style does not convey this meaning. --Viennese Waltz 09:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Style" and "stylize" are completely different verbs as any dictionary will confirm. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so which one is correct in this context? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why Viennese Waltz cites Wikitionary but neglects its second definition of the verb style ?

To create or give a style, fashion or image.
To call or give a name or title.

There are ample citations in dictionaries for this meaning:

Oxford Dictionary ‘the official is styled principal and vice chancellor of the university’

WordNet cites "They styled their nation `The Confederate States'"

YourDictionary defines the transitive verb style To call or name; designate: "George VI styled his brother Duke of Windsor."

In 1811 Jane Austen writes in Sense and Sensibility, chapter 10: "Marianne’s preserver, as Margaret, with more elegance than precision, stiled (sic) Willoughby, called at the cottage early the next morning to make his personal inquiries."

The Online Etymological Dictionary discovers style (v.) c.1500, "address with a title;" 1560s, "to give a name to". 84.209.89.214 (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I thought I'd made myself clear. Stylize refers to the imposition of a visual style – typographical, if you like. That's what we are seeing in Florence + the Machine. None of your examples are visual in nature. --Viennese Waltz 13:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your clear feeling that a neologism is needed for the act you describe. However all these nouns icon pictogram ideogram logo hieroglyphic offer potential roots for a future verb. I don't believe in pre-empting that future verb by endorsing stylize ahead of reliable sources. This search finds "Stylize" (and "Stylise") associated with conventional not radical style. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica was/is notably stylized in ?ETALLIC? font. But that's another story. Fortunately, nobody has those mystery characters on their keyboard, so we don't have to "reload" that debate as often as we might. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VW always delights in putting me down. The question is, who do we believe? VW, or Etymology Online? Meanwhile, VW had better stop whatever he's doing and get to work fixing other articles that say "styled" rather than "stylized", such as Kiss (band), TBS (U.S. TV channel), Apple II, RAI, Pathé, and a host of others he can find by searching for the world "styled" in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the fact that Wiktionary gives different definitions for the two words. --Viennese Waltz 15:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary is as reliable as Wikipedia, which ain't. So what are you still doing here? Get going on fixing those other articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just kind of depends on who is writing it. Personally, I prefer to use American English when dealing with American topics, because I assume that the reader is more likely to be American and will Americanize an article if I find it written in British English. Imo, other dialects are appropriate when the topic deals with those areas. Also, I try to keep articles consistent throughout. It drives me nuts when it's spelled "defense" in one paragraph and "defence" in the next. They're both correct, but it's distracting and is like a huge flashing sign that the article was written by multiple authors. Bali88 (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the record, stylized is the common phrasing in American English when referring to this type of thing. I've never heard it said "styled". That's what you do to your hair. Bali88 (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In BrE, "styled" is a slightly archaic way of referring to a name (knick- or otherwise) or title which someone is known by or uses as an affectation, but which is not entirely official or standard. I'd guess it started to fall out of use around 1950, but doubtless someone less lexicographically lazy than myself will correct me. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.13.119 (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]