Talk:Batter (cooking)

Question
How does batter differ from dough? Water content?


 * I have no answer for you, but it's an excellent question.


 * My gut feeling is that it might be related to the thickness of the mixture: to me "batter" is a thick liquid and can be poured, whereas "dough" is much more solid and can be kneaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.85.67 (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely the reason is the characteristics of the dough and that of batter..... The compositions are also different.... Batter consists of a combination of flours which are need to provide crispiness, crunchiness in some cases and get sticked to the substrate surface(like wheat flour, corn flour, modified starch, some gum to stick on surface and some spices..)... on the other hand the requirement of dough is different..it needs to be baked to give some soft characteristics .. definitely its process dependent but dough composition plays major role.


 * For batter : We need to mix it in water in some required ratio of water to get a required viscosity to make the substrate pick the batter on surface ... while in dough we have to mix it in water or milk as a part of recipe and to have a required rheology and to get the required moisture to puff at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.111.18 (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Beer
I never guessed beer is used to prepare batter for fish. Vinegar is still used as a topping.Anwar (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Beer batter for fish by all means but what kind of a heathen batters chips? Mr Larrington (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Umami
The article says "Batters may be sweet or savoury," but savoury links to Umami. Is this helpful to the average reader? --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think so, the current alternative is linking to a page that first suggests the herb savory, and then later umami, that could be more confusing than just passing over the link if the reader is uninterested. Whitebox (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. The tea leaves in the stats are not as clear, since the cooking traffic is not greater than the baseball and and cricket traffic combined. For some of the other comments: ambiguous titles do need to be disambiguated, but some ambiguous titles have primary topics, so just being ambiguous isn't enough to put the dab page at the base name. If there were a primary topic, putting it at the base name would help readers; see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. With the redirects in place on the dab, the traffic for those titles can be checked again in a few months to see if it clarifies the tea-leaf reading. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Batter (cooking) → Batter – While "batter" can mean a few things, we only have one article called "Batter", and that's Batter (cooking). The only other contender is Batter (disambiguation), which can be (and is) linked to Batter (cooking) in a hatlink. This was moved through WP:CSD and moved back by a third editor due to lack of discussion, if anyone is curious why the primary spot is empty. Batter (disambiguation) was originally at Batter. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  07:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In fact the DAB page Batter (disambiguation) shows that there are several meanings for the term, and though none so far has its own article with "batter" in the title, many readers must in fact be looking for one of those topics and not the cooking one. I would prefer to see Batter as the DAB page (not as a redirect, which it now is). Then everyone could see straight away what all the relevant articles are about, and go straight to one they are after.
 * I would like to see an argument showing that the proposed move would help any readers. Note: appeal to rules (in policy or guidelines) would not constitute an argument. Nor would a demonstration that many readers, or even most readers, or even nearly all readers, are after the cooking article. It that were so, how would they be helped by the removal of the precision we have now?
 * N oetica Tea? 08:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * N oetica Tea? 08:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose there's this thing called "batter" in baseball that is highly prominent. 70.24.251.208 (talk)
 * Comment. I reworked the dab page so that the user sees "Batter (baseball)" and "Batter (cricket)", even though they are redirects. (Note: the cricket redirect page didn't previously exist, as that player is usually known as a "batsman".) Dohn joe (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – ambiguous titles should be disambiguated. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: more likely than all others to be the topic sought. stats.grok.se:
 * Batter has been viewed 7004 times in the last 90 days.
 * Batter (cooking) has been viewed 38947 times in the last 90 days.
 * Batting (baseball) has been viewed 11020 times in the last 90 days.
 * Batting (cricket) has been viewed 29732 times in the last 90 days.
 * Battery (crime) has been viewed 93380 times in the last 90 days.
 * Battery (tort) has been viewed 14542 times in the last 90 days.
 * The numbers require some tea leaves reading, because of the redirects for which only some fraction of the numbers shown reflect people who were searching for "batter" re that meaning. The general use of batsman brings down cricket's number much more.  And I think most people searching for the attack sense search for "battery".  It's a close call, but I figure most people entering "batter" are looking for the cooking meaning. ENeville (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well, ENeville. Now, care to respond to my request (see above)? I wrote: "I would like to see an argument showing that the proposed move would help any readers." Note also the continuation. You give statistics, and some interpretation of them. But I find no argument to support a move. N oetica Tea? 23:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.