Talk:Teaspoon

Gubbock
Seem to remember once being told that a gubbock (sp?)is the name for the teaspoon left at the bottom of the sink when you have finished washing everything else up -is this true?

This sounds like it will have originated in The Meaning of Liff (or in other words, 'no') Grumpypierre (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

ml or mL?
Who keeps changing "ml" into "mL" ? Although "mL" is theoretically correct, "ml" is the most common form, used much more than "mL". -Adrian. 83.101.21.19 12:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See litre for a brief discussion of the ml vs. mL issue in different countries. If you say things like "most common" without adding a country or region, you may want to travel more. Markus Kuhn 14:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"If you say things like "most common" without adding a country or region, you may want to travel more."

I've lived in 5 countries, and traveled through more, and still this is the first time I've seen "mL". Every scientific text I've read (American and European) used "ml". While the "l/L" controversy is understandable because of the potential confusion, "ml" and "mL" do not share that problem. Changing "ml" into "mL" is done to be consistent with an American decision, while the majority of the rest of the world uses the lowercase "ml". But since it's such a controversy, I won't change them.

83.101.21.19


 * I think when there is a choice between technically correct usage, and common usage, technically correct usage wins here. Especially since 'common usage' is really a subjective opinion. You just have to check a cookbook to see the correct usage of mL. Sahuagin (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Linkspam
This article now has three external links to advertising-supported conversion site. External links are helpful for things you might not be able to find on your own. Conversion sites, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen. Go to Google and type on How many teaspoons in a and you'll get bunches of them. One will even tell you how many teaspoons in a cubic light year (1.7E+53). The point is, this all looks to be like spam to me. Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

US-centric
As well as lacking substantiation, this needs to be revised by someone with the requisite knowledge to cover imperial/metric measurement.82.46.70.132 (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

incomplete
Once you point out that a teaspoon is also used as a dry measurement, you need to point out the dry ounce equivalent. Fluid and dry ounces are not identical. 71.163.114.49 (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dry materials still have volume. A "dry ounce" is a measure of mass. A teaspoon of flour weighs differently from a teaspoon of sugar.
 * If you grew up in a country that uses measurements like kilogram and litre, then you would have less opportunity to be confused by the difference between mass and volume of wet and dry things.  (A litre of water has a mass of roughly a kilogramme, but it's not called a "fluid kg".)
 * Pelagic (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Teaspoons used as a measure of weight or mass?
I recently read an article that said so many teaspoons equal an ounce. What the heck kind of insanity is that? I was wondering if there was an arcane system at work here that isn't in this Wiki article. Anyone know?Longinus876 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you point us to the article? My guess is that it was either talking about teaspoons of some specific substance, or it was talking about fluid ounces (which is already covered in the article). --Macrakis (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Rounded versus heaped teaspoon
If a rounded teaspoon is 'produced by heaping the ingredient as high as possible', how can a heaped teaspoon be 'even larger'? You'd have to put the teaspoon back into the container a second time to produce a single 'heaped teaspoon', or use a larger measuring spoon than you use to measure a 'rounded teaspoon'. I suspect the article has an incorrect definition of the 'rounded teaspoon'. Liam Ong (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with your observations (and it's why I like to use weights in recipes, but that's another matter).
 * ( The reason I was looking at this wikipedia page earlier today was to resolve an issue about the Imperial/US/metric differences - I'm using an ingredient where there will be a large difference in outcome between 5cc and 6 cc. )
 * When I'm spooning out fine, sieved, flour, it's possible to get a huge heaped amount on a spoon - it temporarily holds together, and for adding (for eg) 60g at a time that can be quite useful and a time saver.  The amount is considerably more than a "rounded" spoonful.  The heaped contour is irregular,  it is unstable, and it is inconsistent from one ingredient to another.
 * I don't like either term; rounded or heaped - but I can understand how the terminology may have evolved. Neither should be used in precise recipes.  ChanceryBlack (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The second sentence of the rounded teaspoon part belongs in the heaping teaspoon part. Someone got confused. Rounded, as the first sentence states, is when you tap the measure slightly horizontally in order to level it (but usually just results in slightly less material than level teaspoon because either there wasn't enough before to fully fill to level, or if there was enough, a little more ends up accidentally spilling out than level during the tapping).
 * It also contradicts the sentence that came before it : 1) a measure twice a level teaspoon is not between a scant and a level teaspoon, 2) you do not get a mound above similar in shape to the spoon below if between slightly less and level.
 * Someone either got confused between heaping and rounded, or there was mistake in rearranging when someone edited the article leaving the statement with the wrong part.
 * — al-Shimoni  (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources are clearly inconsistent on the issue (as should be expected for the imprecise state of cooking before sous-vide and similar modern implements). Our article should reflect the contradictory sources rather than attempt to distill the precise definitions that will be WP:OR. For starters, I am planning to collect quotes in the section below, please feel free to contribute. Викидим (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to separate the following list into US, UK, and Other lists (because these are usually different). With care, because e.g. Jane Grigson's book is English, despite being (re?)published in the US. Her account exactly agrees with how I was taught to use recipes in England. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to divide the sources in the section below; we can simply separate the UK and US definitions in our article text. Викидим (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, resolved (see sources below and in the article). Викидим (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Excerpts from cookbooks

 * BBC, 1945: "(1) level spoon means level with the edges of the bowl; use a knife to level off (2) rounded spoon means as much above the bowl as you have in it: it is equal to 2 level spoons (3) heaped spoon means as much as you can pile up onto the spoon: it is equal to 3, 4 or 5 level"
 * Linda Collister does not have details: level (default) is the same "use a knife to scrape off the excess", 'rounded' or 'heaped" are mentioned but not define.
 * Henderson & Gellatly also treat rounded and heaped as the same (and default)
 * Heath, A., Kitchen Wisdom, York: Delittle, Fenwick & Co. 1950: "American spoonfuls are measured level. This practice differs from the English, where spoonfuls are heaped to contain twice as much as a level spoonful"
 * Baggett, 2012: "Scant means that the spoon ... should not be quite full"
 * Heath, A., Kitchen Wisdom, York: Delittle, Fenwick & Co. 1950: "American spoonfuls are measured level. This practice differs from the English, where spoonfuls are heaped to contain twice as much as a level spoonful"
 * Baggett, 2012: "Scant means that the spoon ... should not be quite full"

External Links - help please re citing paper Wikipedia style
Context: The previous link to a UK NHS page has been redirecting to another page on the NHS for many years. That target page has now also been "retired" (NHS terminology). I've provided an archive.org link so that the original content can be read.

The original (NHS) content was based on a particular academic paper. I've cited that using the auto filling of the visual editor, but I see that there are now red marked deficiencies, but these cannot be sorted using the visual editor.

Please can somebody, more familiar with the Source editor, and the required citation style, sort this out? Many thanks.

ChanceryBlack (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. Викидим (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)