Talk:Blind-baking

Baking beans
The Baking beans article essentially repeats the information in this article, plus one claim that it distributes heat evenly (with a dead link source). It also clarifies what baking beans are (viz., synonymous with pie weights). Since Pie weight redirects to Blind-baking... Richigi (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

iMAGE OF pIE
tHE IMAGE OF THE PIE PRESENTED IN THIS ARTICLE IS POSSIBLY THE WORST EXAMP[LE OF A PROPER PIE CONCEIVABLE. pLEASE CORRECT OR ELIMINATE THIS PIMAGE. VOID WOULD BE PREFERABLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.154.254 (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the pie crust image. It illustrates the point made that the pie crust bakes without filling in it. (And on a personal note: next time you leave a comment, try to remember not to use CAPS LOCK.) Quixote9 (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Blind-baking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220025543/http://www.homebaking.mobi:80/pie/blind-baking.htm to http://www.homebaking.mobi/pie/blind-baking.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a stub
This article is much more than a stub. It could be expanded, certainly, but it is a fairly complete description of what the term "blind baking" means. I will try to change the designation to "B". Edited to add: No, sorry, can't figure it out. But the bot is wrong classing this as a stub. Quixote9 (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Why it's called blind baking
So ... nobody thought about putting in why it's called blind baking? That would be worthwhile - it's the only reason I read the article (very disappointing). 73.26.46.210 (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)