Talk:Biscuit (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Biscuit coat color

What about biscut coloring in dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.69.73 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North America/UK food descriptions

The text immediately below is copied from my user talk page. I'm placing the text here because it deals with this article's content and should probably more properly be discussed here.

Begin text from User talk:Bryan H Bell

Rather than immediately revert your changes, let me explain my disagreement.

1) My summary of North American biscuits is relatively short and to the point. With all due respect, yours is unweildy and odd. First, soft and moist are practically the same thing when it comes to quick bread. Biscuits and cake rounds are both made in rounds, but cakes are often made in rectangles as well and biscuits can be made in scone-like triangles. I don't get the point of comparing items that are often circular to each other, when you can just describe the first directly as circular. Finally, it is quite odd to use five descriptors in a row to describe and object; this makes the sentence read in an awkward fashion.

before:
*[[Biscuit]], in North America, a small round of [[quick bread]] marked by a rich and moist crumb
after:
*[[Biscuit]], in North America, a small, round, soft, moist, and cake-shaped piece of quick bread

2) Why would you remove any mention of the biscuit as the term is used in the UK? Are you denying its usage or demoting the relevance of non-American culture? Or do you not understand it is a different object altogether (more similar to a cookie)?

Your changes make no sense to me. Please explain. Rosenbluh (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

End text from User talk:Bryan H Bell --Bryan H Bell (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing my changes rather than simply reverting. I agree with some of your points and disagree with others. Let me address each.

• soft and moist are practically the same thing when it comes to quick bread: I disagree. Breads can be spongy yet dry. My intent in describing North American biscuits as soft and moist was to contrast them with non-North American biscuits, which are (by comparison) crisp and dry.
• Biscuits and cake rounds are both made in rounds, but cakes are often made in rectangles: You're right. "Cake-shaped" is probably not a good description. My intent there was to contrast the thickness of North American biscuits with the flatness of non-North American biscuits. What if we say "thick" instead of "cake-shaped"?
• it is quite odd to use five descriptors in a row to describe and object; this makes the sentence read in an awkward fashion: I agree that so many desciptors in a row is awkward. How about "a small round of quick bread that is soft, moist, and thick" instead? We should probably make similar fixes to the cookie description. How about "a small round of flour confectionery that is crisp, dry, and flat"?
• Why would you remove any mention of the biscuit as the term is used in the UK?: One reason for this is that the term isn't used exclusively in the UK. In fact, it's used in almost all English-speaking nations outside North America. In addition, those nations and the UK also use the term "cookie" to describe the same object. I feel that the prefix used on this page together with the definition (i.e. "Biscuit as a food may refer to...cookie, a small, round, crisp, dry, and flat piece of flour confectionery") does an adequate job of defining the term "biscuit" as also referring to cookies. Furthermore, readers who follow the cookie link will find a good discussion of the cookie/biscuit term in the first sentence of the cookie article.

As I said in my edit summary, the primary motivation of my edit was to make sure the definitions of each term contain only one link, which is what WP:MOSDAB suggests. I'm fine with fine-tuning the definitions themselves as long as we don't introduce multiple links. Let's settle on the exact wording here before we commit any further changes to the article itself. Let me know what you think of the alternatives I suggested above. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my captious note. Your suggestions sound great to me. Let me address a few points.

1. I agree with you that breads can be soft and dry. Quick breads do not have a gluten matrix like real bread, so it's not really possible for them to be soft and dry. When a quickbread dries out (at room temperature), the crumb becomes tough like a scone; still, the presence of fat in biscuits helps somewhat in this regard. Please let me know if you can think of a /quickbread/ that disproves this rule.
2. I like thick as a descriptor. I would guess that typical biscuit height is 3/4 in.
3. How about "a small round of quick bread that is light, flaky and tender." I pulled those three adjectives from a book on baking describing the biscuit method, which is used to make biscuits, scones and shortcakes (/On Baking/, Labensky et al., 2005, p.108).
4. I agree with your point about including two identical links. What do you think about adding a non-bulleted, parenthetical line below the North American description reading something like this:

   (Alternately, in the UK ''biscuit'' may refer to a …)
   

5. As far as the UK definition/summary, I'm not crazy about "flour confectionery." What about:

   a baked product similar to a cookie in appearance, but less sweet in taste, often known as a [[Digestive biscuit]]
   

Rosenbluh (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Because this is a disambiguation page, I think the most important consideration in defining these terms is helping readers choose between them. Any other information belongs in the articles themselves. Therefore, my preference is for definitions that contrast the terms, instead of explaining them, and also for keeping any additional information to a minimum.

• You're probably correct that quick bread specifically cannot be both soft and dry. That may help distinguish quick bread from other kinds of bread, but I think the important issue here is what makes biscuits-as-quick bread distinct from biscuits-as-cookies. I think firmness and moisture content are both significant and distinct discriminating factors.
• The alternative terms you suggest "light, flaky, and tender" are indeed descriptive of quick bread biscuits, but the first two don't provide much contrast between quick bread and cookies. We could use the term "tender" instead of "soft" if you prefer.
• I think a non-bulletted, parenthetical line might be overkill, but we might be able to work the regional difference in terminology into the cookie definition itself. You are correct that the regional difference is a major distinguishing factor between biscuits-as-quick bread and biscuits-as-cookies. While this difference is currently present in the quick bread definition, it is currently missing from the cookie definition. See my suggestion for handling this below.
• When looking for a noun to describe cookies (analogous to quick bread) I found the term "flour confectionery" in the Oxford Dictionary of Food and Nutrition). Reconsidering the term now, I tend to agree with you. In fact, a further search has yeilded this source, which seems to indicate that the term doesn't apply to cookies. So what to use, then? I notice "cake" is used in several dictionaries. How about that?

In summary, here is my latest proposal for the definitions, attempting to address your concerns:

* [[Biscuit]] (in North America) a small round of leavened quick bread that is tender, moist, and thick

* [[Cookie]] (outside North America) a small round of unleavened cake that is firm, dry, and flat

Let me know what you think. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)