Talk:Cast-iron cookware

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cast-iron cookware article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Moved sections

I've rolled in the following other wikipedia pages:

  • the paragraph about cookware from the Cast iron page (removed from source)

FiveRings 22:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (the timestamp will be wrong).

[edit] merging seasoning (cast iron)

sounds like a great idea. FiveRings 05:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

After merging it would be good to make the related pages be redirects to the relevent sections of Cast iron cookware. --Midnightcomm 16:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Good idea. Not sure I'll have time to do this this week. FiveRings 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not an instruction manual

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Unless there are objections, I shall remove all procedural material in the article in a week. --Perfecto 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I object. The best way to describe what "seasoning" is is to explain how to do it. 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I also object. The article is pointless otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.206.173 (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wagnerware

I sent email to them a few weeks ago asking if they were still in business, and recieved a surprised reply claiming that they were.

On the other hand, my order still hasn't arrived. Once it does, I'll update the listing. FiveRings 23:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simpler is better

Fiverings, please do a comparison of the current version and my own. All that I did was make the page more succinct. let's look at a paragraph to see this:

MINE: Soap removes the seasoning from cast-iron cookware. However, a very well-seasoned pan can tolerate dilute dish soap, and, for infrequently used pans, this may be preferable to leaving rancid grease on the cooking surface. In general, however, regular washing with soap is not recommended.

EXISTING: It is common knowledge that one should never use soap to clean seasoned cast iron cookware; this will immediately remove the oil, and 'unseason' the pan (or even, according to some cooks, leave soap residue that will poison the food). In fact, a very well-seasoned pan can tolerate dilute dish soap, and, for infrequently used pans, this may be preferable to leaving rancid grease on the cooking surface. In general, however, regular washing with soap is not recommended. When cast iron cookware is washed with soap it should be lightly oiled before it is used or stored away.

We should never write "It is common knowledge", unless you have a survey of people that shows that something is common knowledge. If it's common knowledge, just say it. Instead of writing "never use soap to...", just write what the soap does. Soap cannot poison food no matter what chefs say-- you would need to find a reference to prove that. The phrase "in fact" adds nothing. If we state that washing cast iron pans removes the coating, it is redundant to additionally say that if you wash the pan you should put the coating back on. I would even get rid of "In general", as it doesn't add anything either.

Longer articles are not better articles. MisterSheik 18:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Mistersheik - I am not stating fact, I am documenting a mis-perception. That 'common knowledge' isn't true, nor is the comment about soap. But many cast iron cookware "experts" belive it, and so it is addressed. I've changed the wording to make this more obvious. FiveRings 18:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem with documenting misperceptions is that it ruins the readability of the article. As a reader, I want to be told what *is*. A lot of wikipedia reads "beware, idiots! if you believe this, you're wrong". This, in my opinion, wrecks readability. You don't need to talk about bad experts, just explain objectively what washing the pan does. If you really find the misconceptions so thrilling, you could create a section for them. Also, if the 'common knowledge' 'isn't true', then it should be referred to as a 'common misconception'. MisterSheik 18:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the "common misperception" wording, and will change the text to reflect this. FiveRings 18:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. You've put a lot of good information into the article, but the problem is that the article is still too prescriptive when it should be descriptive. Language like "...is not recommended" doesn't fit into an encyclopaedia. I think it's better to focus on the facts of the things themselves, rather than individual experience of some manufacturer's idiosyncratic warranty-limiting statements. This is still a problem throughout the article.... MisterSheik 19:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
"Many manufacturers recommend" is perfectly encyclopedic. If you want to change things like "is not recommended" to "cast iron experts don't recommend" that's fine. I've added cites to support those kinds of statements. I dont' see any "idiosyncratic warranty-limiting statements" in the article, and I'm distressed by the bunker mentality that implies. Can you be more specific? FiveRings 19:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope that you're not taking my suggestions personally. The article, as it stands, focuses on opinions when it should focus on facts. It says things like "These people think this and they are wrong," or "these cast iron experts think that". It should just focus on the plain facts: Seasoning is the impregnation of the cast iron with fat; washing with soap removes the seasoning; etc. Right now the article is dizzying: It says, "some people say you should never wash the pan, but they're wrong; you can wash them; but really, you shouldn't wash them so often." It sounds like the author is trying to correct the reader instead of informing him.
Anyway, good luck with the article. MisterSheik 15:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are many authors, and the sheer number of people who have included information about seasoning says something about how this topic is viewed among cast iron collectors and cooks. To not address it at all would be leaving out important information. FiveRings 15:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Millions of years?

Absolutely no way. Thousands, perhaps, but not millions. Anatomically modern humans have only been on the planet for a hundred thousand-ish years.--Stevewylie 05:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that there is such a thing as "prima facie/a" knowledge -- Something that on the face of it is true. I think that "common knowledge" is more complicated, meaning generations and generations of folks have commonly believed it. Because it is commonly believed does not necessarily make it true, nor does it mean that it is necessarily false -- such as "old wives tales" are considered false.

Do no denigrate "common knowledge" -- without it society would be in worse shape than it is now ---- writerly one 9/08/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.235.44 (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enameled Cast-iron cookware question

I bought an enameled cast-iron frying pan from Ikea, then instructions don't say anything about not scrubbing it with a rough sponge or steel-wool or anything like that, they just say to hand-wash it... I was wondering if enamel would be damaged if i use a rough sponge (not necessarily steel wool, but a slightly abrasive one. Spindled 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Le Creuset specifically says no abrasives (recommends bon ami). I don't know about Ikea - they may use a different coating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FiveRings (talk • contribs) 02:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] seasoning;

While useful, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide... I would suggest that teh "how to season" a pan qualifies as a how-to instruction that doesn't belong in the article TheHYPO (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. The easiest way to describe what seasoning IS is to describe how its done. (There used to be four or five techniques, it's been cut down). FiveRings (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That may be, and I appreciate that it has improved, but it's not enough to say "it's better than it was" as a rationale for keeping it. It's not just that section, The cleaning reads as a guide as well, but the seasoning is the worst. In fact, reading it over, the techniques don't need any rewriting;they just need to be axed. They add nothing to the explaination of what seasoning is or why it's done and are literally how-to guides on doing it. That's not for wikipedia. I'm axing the two techniques TheHYPO (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How-to - do not revert.

Wikipedia policy is explicitly clear: Wikipedia is NOT a How-to guide. The argument that it's the "best way to explain what seasoning is" is crap, because the article as it is right now already explains what seasoning is: Seasoning is a process by which a layer of animal fat or vegetable oil is applied and cooked onto cast iron or carbon steel cookware. The seasoning layer protects the cookware from rusting, provides a non-stick surface for cooking, and prevents food from interacting with the iron of the pan

That's neutral and explainatory. Any explaination of how it's done is just one guy's opinion on how to do it as far as any reader knows - especially when its uncited. The fact that there were many techniques sitting around on this page implies that there isn't a consensus on how to season a pan, futher implying that this is all opinion, and uncited.

Equally, explaining how to clean a pan was just as how-to, as was the whole care and cleaning section. If one can provide referenced examples of what someone recomends for cleaning, that MIGHT be allowable (if written encyclopedicly and not as a how-to instruction guide).

You can also try the argument that the article sucks without it, but that isn't an excuse to break policy.

Any expansion into explaning the process of seasoning, for example, should be properly sourced, and written encyclopedically "Experts reccomend pans be seasoned by [general explaination of the process] [citation]" is one thing. "Here is how you season: First you [specific step-by-step instructions]" with no citation is another thing. TheHYPO (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you put in a tag requesting citations, and you edit the prose to sound more encyclopedic. You DO NOT remove broad swathes of information. I am reverting your edits again. I will cheerfully participate in a rewrite, and can even provide cites. FiveRings (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It should be removed. When you do rewrites, you should refer to the old edits which you can always do at this link. Until then, it should not appear in the article. It is not editors jobs to put a tag on something bad and wait for it to be fixed. It's our job to fix it. There is no reason for any of this information to be in the article. It does not inform any reader about WHAT cast iron cookware is and the history of it and whatnot. That is what wikipedia encyclopedia articles are for. They are NOT for instructions or advice on how to season the pans or clean them.
In addition, while you may choose to revert the edits, you should not be reverting the new header tag. {{refimprove}} was replaced by {{references}}, which notes that there are NO citations in this article. You should not have undone that change, at very least. TheHYPO (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with TheHYPO. This is what I was trying to get at by saying that the article was prescriptive when it ought to be descriptive. MisterSheik (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This latest edit seems a bit too prescriptive, and I think it should be reverted. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It definitely isn't just a "rewording"-- sorry FiveRings. MisterSheik (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I rolled the cleaning-before-seasoning paragraph into the description of seasoning (it only existed separately because of the OTHER section on cleaning). Then I clarified terms (like, what exactly is meant by "heating the pan".). I don't agree that this is prescriptive - I'm providing a generalized description of several different techniques. FiveRings (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just added a link to tetsubin (Japanese cast iron teapots). Oddly enough, that page, which I did not work on at all, contains a step-by-step description of how to brew tea in such a vessel. In fact, the article on tea in general contains detailed (shall I say, prescriptive) information on how to brew several different types of tea. Hmmm. FiveRings (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. That needs to be fixed as well. MisterSheik (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Just because another page has it doesn't mean it's proper to Wikipedia. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that Tea has some instructive content that needs to be removed, I want to caution that while how-to should be eliminated, facts are not necessarily how to - in the following sentance, for example, under black tea:
The water for black teas should be added at the boiling point (100 °C or 212 °F). Many of the active substances in black tea don't develop at temperatures lower than 90 °C. For some more delicate teas lower temperatures are recommended.
While instructive, the alleged fact that tea should be added at the boiling point because active substances don't develop lower than 90 should not necessarily be removed; but rather, properly worded. If this fact can be sourced, then it is a fact about the tea, and not an instruction (instructions would be: First boil the water, then add tea at the boiling point. Boil for 2 minutes, then serve.) Similarly, explaining in this article that seasoning is performed by heating fats on the pan is not a how-to instruction, and is viable content. So I think much of the tea stuff needs to be reworded, not necessarily removed outright, as long as it can be written as a fact about the tea, not a preparation instruction. The later comments are far more instructive and ought to be pretty much killed:
It is also recommended that the teapot be warmed before preparing tea, easily done by adding a small amount of boiling water to the pot, swirling briefly, before discarding. Black teas are usually brewed for about 4 minutes and should not be allowed to steep for less than 30 seconds or more than about five minutes (a process known as brewing or [dialectally] mashing in the UK, specifically in Yorkshire.).
Cheers TheHYPO (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I tried explaining in this article that seasoning is performed by heating fats on the pan, and you removed it. WRT the tea article, I can probably find hundreds of other examples. Are you signing up to re-edit them all? FiveRings (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I did? It currently states: There are several techniques for seasoning cast iron, all of which involve applying a fat or oil to the surface of the pan and then heating the pan. I have not removed it, and it is quite appropriate, because it explains what seasoning is without trying to give instructions on how to do it. Are you trying to imply that because I'm trying to improve one article I ought to either improve them all, or let the one remain against wikipedia policy? I too could probably find a billion examples of uncited facts on wikipedia; I don't believe that is any justification for anyone to say "you can't delete this uncited fact without deleting all the others"... TheHYPO (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Part of explaining about applying a fat or oil to the surface is explaining about cleaning the surface first. Part of describing heating is describing how and how much (leaving it in the sun isn't going to do it). Previous descriptions on the page were noted as not being precise and accurate enough (even in the paragraph directly above, when an objection was made because there was no explanation of why the coating had to be removed). There is no consistent standard being applied here. As for the other pages, community standards do count for something. FiveRings (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. The article still mentions that to properly season, one must clean protective coating off the pan. I haven't deleted that either. The only thing deleted was instructions on HOW to clean the coating off the pan. Since there is clearly no universal method of how to season a pan, I don't see any way you can source a statement for this page on "how much heat" is required to properly season a pan. I think "heating the pan" is quite clear to readers that you don't mean heating it to normal temperatures by leaving it in the sun, but rather by extreme methods of cooking. If you feel it is unclear, simply change the "heat" verb to "cook" or explain, "heating the pan enough to render the fat", or whatever is the proper technical explaination. This should really be sourced, however, since what any one person thinks the heat should be is just opinion; If you had sources, you could say "heating the pan to render the fat" "two common ways of heating the pan include on a stove [source], or in the oven [source]". This is not instructions. Saying "1. fat the pan 2. cook on the stove for 2 minutes at medium heat", which is what was here before is a far cry from what I just suggested. I sympathise that you wish to make an informative article, but just because you consider yourself a seasoning expert (maybe you don't, I don't know), doesn't mean that unsourced instructions will fly because you know they are true. I fully agree that there is no problem with explaining WHY coating should be removed. I deleted the HOW. Not the WHY. And your problem is that you want to add a WHY without adding a SOURCE that confirms the WHY statement is true.

As for community standards, policy trumps standards any day. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. It's simple policy. I have not run into a significant number of pages that list numbered instruction steps as this article used to. That was a bit tipoff for me to do something to fix it (there wasn't even just one set of instructions - there were several techniques in instruction form, cleaning techniques, care techniques, etc. This article was in rough shape which was far worse than, say, some semi-instructional comments in an otherwise fair article like tea. If I come across articles with numbered how-to instructions, I do try to fix them. This is not the only one I've ever attempted to improve. TheHYPO (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. There were multiple techniques for seasoning, added by multiple editors (all of whom apparently thought the information was worth including), and I distilled them down to one generalized description. (Then one more person added another technique description, which I didn't have time to fix). There are now multiple sources, and again I distilled those down to one generalized description (with the HOW modified by "typically", again sourced). And you deleted it anyway.
The bigger issue here is that, rather than edit the copy to your interpretation of the criteria, you simply delete or revert any information that you think doesn't fit. You're not acting as an editor - you're acting as a self-appointed judge, and leaving the actual editing work for other people. This isn't the wikipedia process. FiveRings (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why you continue to act like I did something wrong. I don't care how many people added before you and I don't care how much you pared it down into one technique. One technique is how-to as as much as ten techniques. Even if you pare it down, it's still YOUR opinion of which of others people's techniques (their own opinions) are important. I'd already explained quite clearly. Facts about seasoning are fine (if cited). Instructions on how to do it are not. It is a FACT that seasoning is typically done by heating a fat on the cookware. It is an instruction that "you should..." (anything that says "you should" is pretty typically instructive) "...heat the cookware for 20 minutes on 350 degrees in the oven" "you will have to do this multiple times..." etc.
If you're confusing me with someone else, maybe that's it... THIS is the edit of the article before I cleared the major problems. The seasoning tequniques clearly are instructions in bulleted lists. It does not say typically, it's a list of instructions. That is the LAST time I wiped anything from the article until today, when I wiped a health section which is contravercial information without a citation. I did not delete anything with typicality text as you suggest. Perhaps someone else did.
Stop being a WP:DICK and blaming me for stuff I didn't do. Your "bigger issue" is completely untrue. From the edit linked to in the above paragraph, my edits resulted in the following still in the article:
Seasoning is a process by which a layer of animal fat or vegetable oil is applied and cooked onto cast iron or carbon steel cookware. The seasoning layer protects the cookware from rusting, provides a non-stick surface for cooking, and prevents food from interacting with the iron of the pan. [...] This coating is typically food-grade wax or mineral oil, and must be removed before the pan is seasoned or used[clarify]. [...] Once cleaned, cookware can then be seasoned. There are several techniques for seasoning cast iron which vary based on the smoke point of the oil or fat used. Fats and oils typically used for seasoning include lard, hydrogenated cooking oils such as Crisco, and palm or coconut oil (in general, oils that are high in saturated fats). A new pan will not be completely seasoned after a single treatment. It takes repeated use for the pan to develop a seasoned, non-stick surface.
As you can see, my last clean of the crap out of this article (which was really just a revert of my first and only other major edits after a third opinion concurred) did not delete any of the generic explaianation of what seasoning is, what it does, or how its performed. TheHYPO (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I was mixing you up with someone else. Sorry. But my comment about fixing instead of removing still stands. "Should be" can be replaced by "Typically is" (with a cite) in an instruction. This is vastly preferable to removing broad swathes of information. FiveRings (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You still don't get it - I delete bulleted lists of instructions - they were nothing more than "you should" instructions that said THE SAME THING as what I left ^ above. They said "put fat in the pan" "heat via this method to this temperature for this length of time" etc. Everything it said was still there in generic form. There was nothing to "fix" It would still not be appropriate to have a bulleted list saying "typically, the fat is added to the pan" "typically it is heated in the oven to 375 degrees for 20 minutes"... etc. Because there is no source showing that there is single accepted practice of seasoning (in fact, there are obviously very many opinions. I would also like to make clear that this is Cast iron cookware. This is not Cast iron seasoning. This article should explain common practices related to cast iron cookware, such as seasoning, but the goal of this article is not to be an instruction manual for cast iron cookware, and the entire history of seasoning and a long explaination on the history or varied opinions on seasoning seem to be beyond the scope of the article. If this article had a 10 paragraph section citing the history of cast iron, It would be fair to add some history about seasoning in a seasoning section, but with no background given on cast iron itself, it would be odd to have a huge section on seasoning. If there was enough cited information devoted to seasoning, a cited, neutral discussion of seasoning might merit its own article, but not here. TheHYPO (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I get it. You delete bulleted lists of instructions instead of rewriting them to wiki standards. The ones you deleted from this article didn't say the same thing as what was above - what "heating the pan" is may be obvious to you, if you have experience with cast iron seasoning, but it won't be obvious to someone who has never had any contact with the process. "Heating the pan, typically on the stovetop or in a medium oven" is more precise and accurate, and will convey more information. This isn't a specific technique - it's a more useful description. As for a history of cast iron, that's what I would be working on if I weren't arguing with you. FiveRings (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last time I will say this: There is no way to rewrite a bulleted list of instructions to wikistandards. Wikipedia denounces instuctions in any form. What part of the instructions did you want saved - the method of heating? It's taken you 4 days and 6 paragraphs to argue a stupid point instead of simply adding the 6 words in 2 seconds to that paragraph to clarify. Don't be a wp:Dick because you are seriously verging on it right now. I'm not perfect, you're not perfect, nobody is perfect. If you thought what I left wasn't quite clear enough because of that one point, you should have simply clarifyed it, not sat here and argued with me. I would not have deleted that phrasing and you have no reason to believe I would have deleted that, so stop whining that I ruined the article, and go do something about making it better the proper way. TheHYPO (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't have deleted that phrasing? Great. That wasn't at all clear from your previous actions. Now how about if I make the paragraph more readable by putting line-feeds between the individual steps? FiveRings (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop sniping at each other. You're not getting anything accomplished by doing so. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

From experience (that is, OR) the pan is heated sufficiently to open the pores in the metal to allow some of the dissolved fat into the pore and the fat is then carbonized. Different pans (and especially pans with complex shapes like shortbread molds) will require higher temperatures (450-500F) than ordinary fry pans (350-450F) where repeated application of fat is a more used method. Meanwhile, both of you please stop reverting and start listening. Thank you. htom (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you guys read the whole discussion? Perfecto came in here initially to explain the difference between describing something and prescribing a behaviour and left when she reverted him. Then, I came in and tried to explain the same thing and quit when she accused me of a "bunker mentality". Then: HelloAnnYong. Now, TheHYPO showed a lot of patience. It's a bit regrettable how it ended with a some sniping back and forth, but I think something good will come out of this though: this discussion helps us all get on the same page about what belongs in the encyclopedia. MisterSheik (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Gimme a break. What I'm trying to do is prevent broad swathes of information from disappearing. It's not necessarily information that I put in - ANY information is valuable. What I object to is when people delete instead of editing. It's easy to cut, and easy to revert. A lot harder to actually do the work. FiveRings (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I empathize with you. I really do. Though all information is valuable, not all of it belongs here. That's what people are getting at. The reason that people keep trying to explain that is so that you can take all of your enthusiasm and really direct it at making a solid article. MisterSheik (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
What people often fail to realize is that wikipedia should not be, and is not intended to be a one-stop shop for everything you could ever want to know about cast iron. Wikipedia is not intended to replace google. Some information just doens't belong on wikipedia. And with all due respect, while it's just as easy for you (rings) to say that we should edit instead of delete, it's just as easy for us to say that you shouldn't add information for the sake of information without learning wikipedia guidelines and then expect others to improve what you wrote so that it meets code. TheHYPO (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I pretty much know Wikipedia guidelines, one of which is "A major edit should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors." Broad deletions, even of stuff that doesn't conform, is a major edit. While I did create the page, I didn't add most of the information on it. (I said it before, and I'll say it again - I'm not defending my own copy. I didn't put in the original Health Benefit section, for example, even though you still think I did). And I've been periodically coming back to fix up what has been added. It's a whole lot easier to edit stuff that's still there than to have to trawl back to previous versions.FiveRings (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I never said you "originally" added the health stuff. But I believe you re-added it recently? If not, I stand corrected; but there's no reason for me to go back into the history and find out who first posted about health issues. I agree that is it easier to edit what is already that. However, that is not an excuse for leaving bad content in an article pending edits. I've been involved in TV articles where people have argued 3 days before airing "why are you reverting that? The episode will air in 3 days, can't we just leave it up until then?" Sure it would be easier, but until an episode airs, it's simple policy that the content shouldn't be in the article; that's why I try to provide a perma-link on the talk page for the previous edit so that it isn't hard to find the old content. Major edits don't need to be consented to by all editors; they simply need agreement from a majority. You expressed a problem with it, so I sought an additional editor's opinion. It seems clear that at least 2 if not more other editors besides me beleive that the content that was deleted was not particularly wikipropriate. TheHYPO (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The health information was put in on December 30 2007 by Golgofrinchian. You removed it and left a scathing message on MY talk page about unsubstantiated claims. I replaced the information, plus two citations. Which edit do you think was more valuable? (hint - empty trains run on time too, but that's not the point). The first time removing the seasoning instructions was proposed two people disagreed, and nobody else supported it - that's why it was reverted (months back), not because of my personal feelings. People have disagreed about that very same edit several times. I do agree that the current text is better than what was there, but the stress involved in creating was uncalled for, and unnecessary. (As for the TV articles, why didn't you just comment out the info?). FiveRings (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Hey. Wiki policy on this is pretty clear: as stated, Wiki is not a how-to page; see WP:NOT#HOWTO. As such, I believe the seasoning technique sections need to be removed. There should be some explanation on seasoning, though, but not a how-to.

We also need to have a brief talk about external links. This page should not have links under the Brands section; actually, that section shouldn't really exist. I don't know why there are two Brands sections, but they shouldn't exist. I would say create a new External links section - most pages here have those - and add a link to a wikiHow article on seasoning. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

So long as the instructions on wikiHow are cited and sourced, I don't see why not; The edits I made, as stated, do not delete information on what seasoning is; they simply delete instructional steps. History and explaination on HOW seasoning works (not how to do it) would be great to inform readers, so long as they are cited; but howto must stay out. I agree about the brands too - without citation, this is just one person's opinion on what the notable brands are, and the external links certainly add to the argument that this just just brand advertising. I'll get rid of that as well. TheHYPO (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say cite wikiHow; as a Wiki itself, it's not acceptable to source it. Linking to it, however, seems fine with me. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
There, I added it. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say you said that. I said I don't have a problem with putting the technique on wikihow as long as THAT entry is cited. I didn't mean citing wikiHow here. I didn't realize that seasoning was already on wikihow - I thought you were suggesting moving it there. :) TheHYPO (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1 - Wikihow is a commercial site. 2 - if you don't understand why brands are listed twice, you didn't read the article (not just one person's opinion - these were the only widely available brands, there is a collector's community, and this is therefore of historical interest. Citations can be provided). 3 - I'll say it again. Wikihow is a commercial site. It is not affiliated with Wikipedia. This is not the same thing as linking to a Wikidictionary or Wikirecipe page. FiveRings (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
(conflict) Perhaps it would be appropriate to move the seasoning recipes to Wikirecipe ... oh, that doesn't exist, despite repeated discussions. When it does, I'd support moving it there. Until then, this is a better place than most. The number of people who don't know how to do this is huge. htom (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Problem is, there are hundreds of different techniques. The two that were left on the page were distillations of many, many that had been added. I agree that the techniques should be there. I'm tired of playing ping-pong, however. I've put three external links in, and will add more. FiveRings (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Not too many more, though; at some point, the links just become redundant. I trust your opinion on this; for cast iron, I'd say list the three most reliable methods for regular cast iron (when I did my seasoning, the method I used was most similar to the one at only cookware), and maybe two or three links for enamel. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

After a fast survey of Wikipedia I have found several articles that list popular brands, for example, the article on Instant noodles. Replacing brand information. FiveRings (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't need two sections for it. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look at that page: they list several brands on there and provide links to other Wikipedia articles on the companies, but they don't have external links. As per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, specifically #5, "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services", I'm going to remove the brand sections. All you're doing there is providing spam links. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Le Creuset has its own wikipedia article. Some other well-known brands do as well (that's why they're WELL KNOWN). When I have the time, I will create pages for the other links and replace the brand information. FiveRings (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You can wikify the links in the sentences, but don't recreate the brand sections the way they were. There was information on there that was tangential to the page, and would be better on separate pages. The information on location of manufacture was particularly unencyclopedic. On a side note, I can't find Wiki articles for Griswold, Wagner, Lodge, John Wright, Cajun Cast Iron, Staub, and Copco. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Lodge is at Lodge (company). Thought Wagner was mentioned under Meyer, but can't find it. Griswold is an american institution, and should have had its own page anyway. FiveRings (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay. It wasn't on the Lodge disambig page (it is now). I'll add that in. As for Griswold, if you can write a reliable article that ascertains the company's notability, then by all means, go ahead. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with a section of "Manufacturers" or "Brands". There is something wrong with uncited original research or advertising copy about them. Unless independant citation can be offered, a section would probably be weak. In the lead, one might say "some manufacturers of cast iron cookware include..." and list popular manufacturers with wikipedia articles (or who might rightfully have such articles)... that might be debatable, but it's much better than an uncited discussion of the collectability and features of brands and what they are "known for", all of which is original research [I notice now that this edit was made and it's far more appropriate]. If you are going to start pages for other brands, please ensure they are notable per WP:Notability, and please ensure that you find citations for the information you use on any such pages, or else you may be seen as just creating advertising pages for unnotable companies for the sole purpose of being able to add them to this article.
I'm not looking to be a wp:DICK, so I don't want to go tag the Lodge article at this point, but right now it's not an article. It says "Lodge is a company that makes cookware in [city], founded by [person]." - there is nothing there that is notable. Adding an external link makes it seem like an attempt to advertise, and the only notability comes from the unsourced statement that it is one of America's oldest cookware companies. "Lodge Cookware" brings up over a million yahoo hits, so I would hope there would be some useful links to cite among them, and suggest you improve the article. I would prefer not to see you create similar articles for other brands which would all have to be deleted for no offer of notability. TheHYPO (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
What I think I will do, actually, after sleeping on it, and taking a look at my collection, is to create a section on the cast iron page called "antiques and collectables". That will support a discussion of the well-known classic brands, and can be well-sourced. (Oddly enough, this is what I had in the first place, before other editors started adding in other info. What a concept). FiveRings (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Um.. I'd remind you a few Wiki policies. First, WP:OWN - this isn't only your article. More specifically, "You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia." We're allowed to edit here just as much as you are. Second, be careful of WP:OR - original research is not allowed. Basically every sentence on Wiki has to be verifiable. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Um... thus the comments about "well sourced" and "other editors". Sheesh. FiveRings (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead work

The lead for this article needs some improvement. I tried to fix it a bit, but it needs something better. It used to say "cast iron cookware is cookware made out of cast iron"... that was just awful writing; I'm trying to figure out a better way to get the "cookware" and "cast iron" into the lead as near to the begining as possible for the links to those terms, because MOS says not to link the bold mention of the title.

I've moved the one-sentence brand section up there, since it will add to the lead, and kill a one-sentence section at the same time. I think the lead needs to be a bit longer though, such as explaining the common benefits and uses of cast iron, and perhaps its detriments and when it should not be used... something to give a reader an overview of what cast iron could possibly be the appropriate cookware for... TheHYPO (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The brands you put into the lead were for bare cast iron, not all cast iron. Did some more moving around. The one sentence brands section will grow as soon as I get a good picture of my Griswold pan. FiveRings (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is it awful writing to say "cast iron cookware is cookware made out of cast iron"? That's what cast iron cookware is. If you think it's obvious, then maybe we shouldn't even have that sentence; we can just wikilink the terms in the subsequent lines. MisterSheik (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"Cast Iron Cookware" isn't a title... it's a description - "cast iron cookware" is only the title of the article because it is cookware that is made of cast iron - it is not the "title" of the product. As such, saying that "cast iron cookware is cookware made of cast iron" is repetitive. It's like saying "two-wheeled bicycles are bicycles with two wheels" - or "lead pipes are pipes made of lead" or "Pink Cadillacs are Cadillacs that are pink". Since "Cast iron cookware is the description of what the item is, there shouldn't be a sentence like that. I'm just not sure what it should be. I don't think it's contraversial to suggest cast iron is a common cookware material - It is available in most stores and is hardly a rarely used cookware metal. Either way, I don't know what the first sentence should read, but what is there is not great. TheHYPO (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that. MisterSheik (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon steel

The reason carbon steel was mentioned in the seasoning section is because there is no equivalent page for carbon steel, and the seasoning techniques are essentially the same. Seasoning links for carbon steel on both the Wok page and the Cookware and bakeware page link back here. This may suggest breaking out seasoning to its own page (though I guarantee that every other person who views it will add their own technique). Or creating a page for carbon steel cookware, or putting a seasoning section on the Wok page. Or just putting the carbon steel link back. FiveRings (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I've mentioned that given the history and numerous techiniques involved, Seasoning (cast iron) or seasoning (cookware) is a distinct possibility in the future. You are right, that it would have to be heartily policed to ensure that uncited opinions and techniques were not added, but the best solution to that would be to start off with a well-cited article. People add uncited stuff to uncited articles a lot more than to well-cited articles, I find.
Since the seasoning section here currently lacks any citation, I don't see this happening any time soon, but it's something I can see happening. The key would be neutrality. "The earliest known tequnique for seasoning involved... [describe process] [citation]" for example - talking historically. Also, since it would leave this article relatively empty, that is another reason to avoid doing it at this juncture.
I just want to make clear: the key problems with how-to are a) uncited instructions - the worst offence - this makes it not just how-to, but one guy's opinion how-to; b) specific details that aren't needed to explain how seasoning is done or why it's done (eg: exact oven temperatures for seasoning would never been needed; only for something where a precise temp is an agreed upon fact - eg: boiling point of water or other chemical reaction temp) should an exact temperature be given (and cited), and that is as a fact about the chemical or process or whatnot, not as an instruction. Eg: If yeast would only rise at exactly 350 degrees, it might be notable in a yeast article if it was the scientific consensus. c) "prescriptive phrasing" as mentioned above - saying "Then you do this" "You should not do that" etc. Those are the three main problems with how-to. Eliminating them by saying "The pan is then heated to a point where the fat renders [cite]" (or whatever the proper phrasing is) is proper, while "You should then heat the pan in the oven at 400 degrees for 20 minutes" [no cite] breaks all three principles I mentioned. I hope you see the difference. TheHYPO (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Putting back in the Carbon steel link, not because it's the ideal solution, but because I don't like leaving links from other pages dangling. FiveRings (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I've created a page for seasoning (cookware). It is currently a redirect to the seasoning section here, but at some point it can be spawned to its own page. I don't understand what you mean by leaving links hanging? I have no problem with including any other type of cookware that seasons, since the section is the de-facto section on seasoning TheHYPO (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Cognitively hanging - the wok page linked here, but there was no mention of carbon steel (the typical wok material), only cast iron. Someone coming in would have been confused. FiveRings (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah - I checked the carbon steel page and didn't see a link here, which is why I was confused. TheHYPO (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Your pet beef is cites, my pet beef is garden paths. :-) FiveRings (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of sources.

I'm not going to delete it because it's better than nothing, and I don't think the fact is likely false, but citing "experts say" off a site run by a guy and his wife is not necessarily qualifying for wikipedia realiable sources. Just any ol' website is not a citable source on wikipedia (wp:RS) -I'd think that site would fall under self-published sources. I'd at least like to remove the phrase "expert" as there is no evidence that this self-published technique stems from any expertese.

My bias would be that with this many unique versions of "how to season", there should be no "experts say" unless 99% of all methods suggest this, or someone with an actual authority can be cited as suggesting it. Thoughts? TheHYPO (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I wanted to say to you all (FiveRings, TheHypo, and HelloAnnYong) that I think this article is really improving. MisterSheik (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Aw shucks. I put in the Louisiana cooking link because it mentions the "pores" thing high up in the text. I can probably find dozens of other links that reference the same belief. I'm fine with taking out the "experts" wording. FiveRings (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)