Talk:Cookware and bakeware

Comments
cooking pan? i've never heard it called that before. Isn't it a frying pan, or a fry pan? --Tristanb 00:15 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * 1) I too have never heard of a cooking pan. It is a frying pan.
 * 2) This is hardly a subject for an encyclopædia. We seem to be having a lot of cooking pages appearing on wiki; first recipes, now utensils. None of them are encyclopædic or encyclopædia topics. All are listed on the votes for deletion page. I guess this will have to join them. FearÉIREANN 00:27 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really have much problem with a page frying pan existing -- there are many worse sins. (I don't like recipes though). I won't move it or do anything else, otherwise i'm just making more pages to potentially delete. I'll let someone else put in on votes for deletion if they want, see what others think. Tristanb


 * I've listed it on the VfD page. FearÉIREANN 03:14 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is there a common term for saucepan, frying pan and similar? May be Pan (cooking)? - Patrick 02:50 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There are a whole bunch of terms for the same general concept, that of a vessel that is relatively broad and shallow. "Cooking pan" is a generic term that would cover a range of shapes and sizes, then cooking pot could be for things that are deeper and used for a different purposes. Ideally, one would have many redirs for all the other terms that are used. Stan 04:35 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A google search gets 8,350 hits for the exact phrase. I object to deletion

This article is a pitiful stub, so I encourage people to fill it out with information. What about the history of cooking pans? Which culture invented the first cooking pan? What's the oldest cooking pan that archeologists have discovered? How have modern materials been used to improve their design? There's lots that could be said here, and I hope it will be. Martin 17:50 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Agree. I also think that pots, pans and other such tools of culture and civilization are indeed appropriate subjects of encyclopedia articles. -- Infrogmation 16:26 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Frogmation, I agree. Of course its a suitable subject to include in an encyclopedia. I came across it exactly for the reason that I needed to know about something in that category! Though sadly, it didn't contain the answer I wanted; it didn't include brass as a material for cooking utensils. Does anybody know if brass is a safe metal to cook in? I have an antique brass saucepan, which is unlined by any other metal. I've had it for years, but only as an ornament hanging in the kitchen. But I would like to use it if it's safe. I'm aware that it must have been used in Edwardian/Victorian kitchens, but they were not aware of many things regarding metal poisoning & safety and such then. I'd be most grateful, & interested if anyone can supply me with any information. 82.132.240.177 (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Cooking utensil
Why does cooking utensil redirect here? I guess I'm unclear about the meaning of cooking utensil. Is a cooking utensil any utensil, aiding in cooking, or is it a utensil used specifically in cooking? If the former, the redirect is wrong, and if the latter, articles such as whisk shouldn't link to cooking utensil. Ambarish | Talk 22:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems like a bandaid probably - cooking utensil should be a brief summary of the full range of things called such, plus a list of specific items, ideally with all possible utensils listed, for proper encyclopedic completeness. Stan 23:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There is already such a list at List of food preparation utensils. Perhaps cooking utensil should redirect to this list, so that one can then choose the article about the utensil of one's choice afterwards.  ???  Well?!  Is it an idea? Sfdan 11:29, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, it's even linked from this article... :-) There's still room for article-type content for utensils in general, such as history - yesterday I got to wondering at what point iron cooking utensils supplanted bronze or pottery, but WP doesn't have the answer, and Googling was inconclusive. Stan 12:49, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

In the Alumnimum section, what does "neither material" refer to? Aluminum and steel? This could be more clear.

Merge Cooking Pot into this page?
Unless there are objections, I intend to merge cooking pot into this page. FiveRings 22:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

done FiveRings 02:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

pots or gourds?
Merged cooking pot into this page, but the picture that came with it looks like gourds, not ceramic pots. Comments?

Aluminum rusting?
'Aluminum is a lightweight metal with very good thermal conductance. It does not rust'

The issue I have here is the use of the word 'rust.' 'Rust' is the oxidation of the element iron, and so defacto is not the oxidation of aluminum. The meaning that is typically conveyed by the statement is that aluminum does not oxidise (react with oxygen). In fact aluminum very quickly oxidises when exposed to oxygen in air. The difference in oxidation of aluminum and iron is that the coating of aluminum oxide over aluminum prevents further oxidation, but with iron such oxidised coating doesn't prevent further oxidation. Consequently the oxidation of iron (rust) is corrosive, and not in the case of aluminum

This is fine. If you wanted to fully explain every term, then you would need to have all of wikipedia on every page. It doesn't say it doesn't oxidise, so I think this is fine. Rust can be made into a link if needs be, so can aluminium, if people are interested in it's chemcial properties. As a science student I fully apreciated what is involved.

129.234.55.55 (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rust does sound a bit dorky. How about:

"'Aluminium is a lightweight metal with very good thermal conductivity. It is resistant to many forms of corrosion, although it can be damaged by strongly alkaline automatic dishwashing detergents. Aluminium can also react with some acidic foods to change the taste of the food. Sauces containing egg yolks, or vegetables such as asparagus or artichokes may cause oxidation of non-anodized aluminium. Since 1965 circumstantial evidence has linked Alzheimer's disease to aluminium, but to date there is no proof that the element is involved in causing the disease, and it is now considered unlikely. Aluminium is commonly available in sheet, cast, or colored anodized forms.' cojoco (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)"

lens-shaped?
I am disambiguating the lens links. While I understand the description of a Wok as lens-shaped, that isn't really helpful if you don' know what a wok already looks like. The only type of lense that fits that description exactly is a miniscus lens. Can someone find a better way to describe a Wok? Perhaps use the desciptors found on Wok. For now I'm redirecting the lens link to lens (optics). Speed8ump 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Cooking basket
Wouldn't cooking baskets (native American) fall under cookware. Should a paragraph be added on those. Lisa4edit (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * sounds like a good idea, but where would one find a reference? (should also add olla). FiveRings (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes nothing exists until a white male has written about it in a book. Some anthropologists (and other -ologists) have looked into some aspects.  Art sites have some mentions, but I doubt that will suffice for the wikipurists.  I'll give it a start, but I know diddly.  I'll try to get someone at the native American portal to maybe add a bit and correct things if I should get it wrong.  --71.236.23.111 (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll certainly agree with your self-assessment. Go ahead. FiveRings (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversial? Really?
The Non-stick section (under Coated..) says this: There has been controversy surrounding the use of nonstick coatings: ... overheating ... Really? Has anyone seen a reliable source that disputes that overheating produces toxic products? I'm going to cite additional information on the issue, and I want to give equal time (WP:WEIGHT), but as of now I'm convinced that the equivocation should be deleted. Dmforcier (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The section has other problems too.

BTW, what's the deal with the subsection formatting such as in ? Why the fake subheads rather than H4, e.g. ==== Non-stick ==== ? Dmforcier (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I left an empty nonstick pan on a burner by accident, and all of a sudden the house was filled with a sweet smelling gas. I looked up the decomposition of nonstick, and yes, it produces toxic products. Lesson learned: only stick non-nonstick empty bakeware on a hot burner. The reason nonstick doesn’t decompose at high temperatures when full is because heat is not just accumulating in the utensil, it is also being removed by the contents of the utensil. The nonstick begins decomposition at high temperatures sometimes encountered during cooking, but it is safest to use them only at or below 400°F, and to use glass or plain metal utensils at higher temperatures. Axeyop (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Aluminum and Alzheimer's Disease
At one time a connection was suspected. "Experts today focus on other areas of research, and few believe that everyday sources of aluminum pose any threat." (Alzheimer's Association) Accordingly, I'm going to heavily modify the Aluminum section to reflect this. Dmforcier (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation 12 appears to simply be unreferenced opinion
It cites no source, and simply seems to be a placeholder response to a [CN] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.242.94 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Introduction - focus on material
I've added to the header section and (hopefully) improved it by pointing out that much of this article is about the variations of material used for cookware and bakeware affects the properties and use of the item.

As such I've removed the 'too short header' tag

Hope this does the trick

Jpmaytum (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Aluminium or Aluminum - spelling debate
This article had an inline note in the Aluminium section citing WP:ENGVAR and claiming this meant the US spelling of the word was used - rather than the spelling used everywhere else in the world (except Canada) WP:ENGVAR actually says that a regionised spelling of a word should only be insisted upon for an article particularly related to a specific country (ie White House should use US English Buckingham Palace should use British English, but general articles such as food do not have a specific version that should be used.)

This article had both versions of the spelling in this section. I have now made the spelling consistent.

I have used the worldwide version of the word as this was the spelling in the section head and there is no clear reason why this section should be written in American. I have amended the inline note to direct any conversation to this talk section.

hope this clear things up.

Jpmaytum (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see the use of aluminium (I'm British/English)as a safe hygienic material for great cookware. Has anyone present ever passed a finger over a "clean" aluminium cooking pot or pan? If so you will have noticed that you had a black finger tip. Actually this is aluminium oxide which is constantly being shed from the raw aluminium material, and no matter how many times you clean your pot or pan with soap and water, it still continues to output this aluminium oxide. I am not a chemical expert but I very much doubt that aluminium oxide is very good for a healthy living style. Maybe someone could shed some light on the matter so that I may once and for all decide to dispose or not dispose of all the aluminium great cookware I have in my kitchen cupboards. 189.242.44.211 (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC) David Anthony http://greatcookware.theazonway.com

Missing Stone
You guys forgot stone cookware, despite it's one of the oldest and safest types. People have been cooking via stone, earth/clay, and wood/other tree/plant parts throughout history. How could you leave out that stone and wood are still in use, and are among the best choices for safety and environmental-friendliness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.251.138 (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

external link caldero
I am not sure the external link called caldero is appropriate in the middle of the argument. I request that it be converted into a reference or something. 69.168.144.139 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. I found a better reference for it. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This article about cookware or a tool used in preparation cookware sets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonjacks (talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

name
Article titles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.80.19 (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Health claims on this page
For example, in the section Non-stick there is the statement "Note that the highest temperature listed for a recommended use is 470 °F/243 °C. overheating, particularly likely when heating an empty pan, can produce decomposition products that are toxic to humans" referencing an EWG article in 2003 by non-expert authors and which references "in new tests conducted by a university food safety professor" without citing any sources, let alone reputable (in a WP:MEDRS sense). This sort of claim should only be made when referenced to reputable peer reviewed and preferably secondary consensus. TerryE (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dmforcier You shouldn't revert this content for the justification "No counter-evidence". WP doesn't work this way.  You need a WP:RS source to underpin any "fact" included in WP, and in the case of medically relevant claims this should reference a WP:MEDRS source.  In this case the cited article doesn't even mention this 470 °F/243 °C datum.  Moreover its principle author was an environmental activist with a masters and bachelors degree in civil engineering.  Her role is PoV and her qualification non-expert.  I don't have any problem including a claim that is underpinned by a secondary consensus or a qualified claim by a primary source.  But for WP to say that there is a health risk from Teflon coatings when heated past a specific temperature then you should at least have sound evidence to back this up. TerryE (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The citation references statements by the manufacturers of the coating. There is *plenty* of evidence that overheating PTFE releases toxic fumes  All you are quibbling about is how likely a pan is to reach those temperatures in common use.  Well, the cited article demonstrates that it is quite easy.  Rather than say "non-expert" and remove the citation, I challenge you to cite counter-evidence that it does not occur. Dmforcier (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dmforcier, surely if there is "plenty of of evidence that overheating PTFE releases toxic fumes", then it would be easy to directly cite a manufacturer or better an WP:RS or better a WP:MEDRS source for the classification as "dangerous". The cited article is a piece of reporting dressed up in pseudo-scientific terms . It doesn't demonstrate anything of correctly cite any RS source (BTW, "new tests conducted by a university food safety professor" does not count.)  Yes, it does include the quote: In a recent press release, DuPont wrote that 'significant decomposition of the coating will occur only when temperatures exceed about 660° F (340° C).  It does seem to me that 660° is a tad greater than 470° and that "significant decomposition" may or may not represent danger to humans. But then again, if you heat a pan to over 340°C then you'll get a lot of other problems -- like any plastic handle will start to give off pretty nasty toxins.
 * Yes EWS petitioned CPSC twelve years ago, but I don't think anything became of this petition. If we want to quote Dupont then why not go to the horses mouth with their current statement Cookware Coated with Teflon Nonstick is Safe to Use? or why not a piece of proper WP:RS research Investigation into the migration potential of coating materials from cookware products which concluded that "There was no detectable release of perfluorochemicals".  I am not advocating any specific content, just that content which claims health risks should follow the enforced WP rules. TerryE (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There are so many health topics related to cook/bakeware that an entire subsection devoted to them would make sense. As we can see, little tidbits remarking about interesting health repercussions have popped up over time all over the page. There’s PTFE decomposition, the alumino-Alzheimer’s allegations, metal toxicity, microwave safety, and who knows what else will come around in the future. Also not mentioned are the health benefits of certain utensils (ie: un-enameled cast iron->iron supplementation). There’s no reason to have all the little nuggets of distraction strewn throughout the page. Why not shove the subject under a new subheading and satisfy the fears that led to people adding these. I’m sure there are existing pages regarding all of these cases, so a paragraph referencing all of them would keep the tidbits from expanding in the wrong place. Axeyop (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Copy claim
This article is too similar to the New World Encyclopedia article at "www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cookware_and_bakeware" that is also titled "Cookware and Bakeware." Probably plagiarized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎72.22.151.103 (talk • contribs)
 * Vice-versa. The article there credits Wikipedia as the baseline. Kuru   (talk)  22:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Saucepan!
The single most important and frequently used piece of cookware in Europe, at least, yet it only gets a short paragraph in this article when many more obscure utensils have entire articles. No details of history, construction, usage etc. Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

How to make cooking pots with copper
190.80.91.222 (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)