Talk:Biscuit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

NOTE: This archive contains discussions started between 2005 and 2010. A few of them have minor comments that were added as late as 2011. Lou Sander (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Old

'The biscuit sandwich burst onto the scene' - love it.

_ _ A template added to this talk page's article says

It has been suggested that this article be split into multiple articles accessible from a disambiguation page. (Discuss)

Indeed. At present a lk to biscuit offers no hint of whether the flour-based food item is relatively thin, brittle, and sweet (a biscuit in UK but a cookie to Yanks), or relatively thick, tearable, and bland (a biscuit in America -- but BTW, what in UK?).
_ _ IMO the proposal is a no-brainer, i.e., requires no significant thot before enthusiastic approval.
_ _ How about English biscuit and American biscuit, since the non-parenthesized approaches to Dab'g are preferred?
--Jerzy·t 14:33, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

I found this article from Hard tack. There is an article Cracker (biscuit). Basically my position is that there should be one article each for: (a) what USies call cookie and UKies call biscuit, (b) what USies call cracker and UKies call ?, (c) what USies call biscuit [and they should be savory not bland] and UKies call ? I wonder if the article on British and American English differences has some hints as most of these articles probably already exist under one title if not the other. Generally in these cases I like to use for the title the word with the least number of other uses. -Acjelen 16:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

_ _ Split and Combine. I support all that Jerzy and Acjelen say. It'll take a bit a work, however, to find and combine the three different versions of biscuit that apparently exist. Friejose 21:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see the biscuit daughter articles follow the pattern set by such articles as American football and Flashlight. -Acjelen 22:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The sections aren't big enough to stand alone at present, in my opinion. But I'd support the split if there were more content that could be added to each (I'm thinking lists or something would be possible). Not into 'English biscuit' and 'American biscuit' though; possibly 'Biscuit (US English)' and 'Biscuit (Commonwealth English)', or Acjelen's three-way split. (Incidentally, I'm not sure how closely the rest of the Commonwealth matches Australian usage, but Aussies call both 'cookies' and 'crackers' biscuits; cookie, cracker, shortbread, crispbread, and others are seen as somewhat uncommon and technical terms to distinguish them. I'm not sure we have anything closer to US biscuits than scones.) -- Perey 09:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be an almost word-for-word duplicate article at Biscuit (food). How/why did that happen? -- jeffthejiff (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No idea, but I've merged it here and left a redirect. --Angr (t·c) 22:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Why, pray tell, are biscuits in the American section referenced to fast food? What, was this written by a Brit or Aussie? Most Americans do not live their lives going from one fast food place to another. Lemonade is frequently featured at fast food places. But you don't define lemonade in reference to fast food. Such a reference is oddly placed indeed.

---

Water biscuits are surely crackers thinly veiled as biscuits, to gain the heightened exposure they enjoy & broken biscuits are more of an assortment of biscuits than a variety- why are they listed here? (Paulo Fontaine 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

Agreed and deleted. -- jeffthejiff 22:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---

People in the UK eat American biscuits all the time--they call them Scones. The only difference is that they make them a little on the sweet side. (Of course, they make their "crackers" a little sweet, too!) There's a picture of American biscuits on the Scone (bread) page. (It's from the US Dept of Agriculture.)

Never had/seen an American biscuit, but i think Scones are different to your biscuits in some way. As pointed out in the article, they're "doughier". Scones are sometimes sweetened, especially when they have fruit in or eaten with jam and cream, but you can also get cheese ones.

Red Lobster, the largest chain of seafood restaurants in the US, puts a basket of CHEESE biscuits (scones) on the table as an appetizer (starter). Scones and biscuits are definitely the same animal. I'm from the Southern US, home of the biscuits. Had biscuits yesterday, just got through eating what's known as a scone here, and have had scones (and biscuits (cookies) in London. There may be variations of biscuits (scones) in the US that don't exisit in scones in the UK and vice versa but the area of commonality is much larger.

The biggest differences are 1)sometimes scones are made as a large piece of bread and then sliced like a pie into triangles and 2) scones are normally eaten for tea/snacks and would not accompany a meal where US biscuits are more frequently eaten as part of a meal.

I think everyone would be convinced if they looked up recipes for scones and US biscuits on the internet and looked at the ingredients. They are both "quick breads" made with dough instead of batter. I like to eat pizza for breakfast, too, but that doesn't mean it's not pizza, even if I gave it another name. See [1] for a variety of US biscuit recipes, sweet and savory, and [2] for a variety of UK scone recipes, sweet and savory.69.22.239.42 15:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I think scones are distinctly English, as we traditionally have them with a cup of tea, and they're often found in tea shops; definitely not "found as a side dish at fried chicken restaurants". But maybe we copied them from America, who knows... -- jeffthejiff 22:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, Scones are Scottish but I agree they're a British thing. 90.240.34.233 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Missing from this discussion are beaten biscuits. Not a different animal, but definitely a sub-species. THB 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Biscuit articles

This probably shouldnt go here, but what the hell. Who else thinks that the biscuit articles on Wikipedia need serious work? I'm talking about the English meaning of Biscuit, as in Digestives, Hobnobs, Nice and Malted milks. They really let our biscuit heritage down. Biscuit WikiProject maybe? Who's with me?

Or do i need to ask this somewhere more obvious? -- jeffthejiff 22:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Action towards untangling biscuit, scone, cookie, cracker

I made an easy first step towards this by moving Cracker (biscuit) to Cracker (food) and changed links to it as well as creating a Cracker (disambiguation) page redirecting to Cracker. Apparently the meaning of Cracker related to computers is extremely popular these days.

Since CE "biscuit" consists of AE "cookies" and "crackers" it would seem best to use "cookie" and "cracker" instead of "biscuit". This would be controversial.

"Biscuits" is the UK term for the American word "cookies" it is a precise translation and does not include "crackers". The British and as far as I know most English speakers refer to "crackers" as "crackers" and packets of crackers are labled accordingly. AJP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.94.228 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It would also leave the problem of AE "biscuit". It would be less trouble to leave AE "biscuit" and CE "scone" separate but to cross-reference.

Suggestions on what to do next? THB 17:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting. Muffin and cupcake are problematic even without the language issue. [3]THB 03:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I plunged in and did it since everyone seemed to agree on the basic plan.

There are disambiguation pages for Cracker and Biscuit. There is a Biscuit page that has a little on English biscuits and referrs to Cookie plus a good bit on American biscuits. This functions both as an edible Biscuit disambig page as well as the primary article on American biscuits. There is the Cookie page with a bit moved over about English biscuits (cookies).

There are at least 15 times as many references to edible cookies (subtracting computer cookies) on Google as there are to biscuits of all types and nationalities put together. According to Wikipedia naming protocols, that's what the Cookie article should be called.

I hope everyone can understand the articles and that no one feels slighted. THB 06:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Biscuit is the British and international name for the hard treat. Only in North America is the term cookie correctly used. Unfortunately the internet is dominated by Americans. However that is no reason to adopt their various spelling quirks.124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Beaten biscuit

I redirect this term here but there is no discussion of this type here yet. Rmhermen 05:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but let's toss the photo

File:Biscuiteating.jpg

A biscuit being eaten.

Sorry, but IMHO the image Biscuiteating.jpg "A biscuit being eaten" adds nothing to the page and should be removed immediately. Anybody want to chime in for or against? -- 201.51.228.229 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support: That photo is absolutely terrifying, especially if you're a cookie. I mean biscuit. No, I mean cookie. -THB 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support: This image is completely useless, unless somebody would add a section which explains how to eat a biscuit. --Nin 11:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Done.-THB 03:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth vs. American English (again)

Please see the article on English language and this graphic: [[4]] Thanks, -THB 03:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

- What's your point? That because of a pie-chart we shouldn't refer to biscuits in the UK/Commonwealth English sense at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.112.32 (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, every article should be in American English. I think we should stick to using the dialect the first editor used (aside from articles relating to certain countries, for which we should automatically use that country's dialect, such as using American English for the Washington, D.C. article and British English for the London article). --Evice (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I LOLed when I saw a chocolate chip cookie as the main image for the article for biscuit, but who am I to change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.142.160 (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The originator of the article may have preferred the American term. But the rest of the English speaking world use biscuit. That is the term that should be preferred. Americans are out on a limb on this one.124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is the term Commonwealth Nations used as a synonym for the English speaking world? This is somewhat inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.1.51 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The thing about Britons seeing biscuits as being nice

In the article in the British section, it say "British people tend to see biscuits as being "nice".". Does that belong here? Some Britons do and other Britons might not. Voortle 09:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Voortle. what is that line about? most likely a bit of playful vandalism - either that or an oblique reference to "Nice" biscuits (for american readers, a thin delicate sugar covered type of biscuit in the UK, pronounced 'neece' as in the french city)

I think it's a reference to a staple in UK comedy/drama (and real life) - it's a cliche that any incident, minor or major, can be solved in the UK by a "nice cup of tea and a biscuit." Saccerzd (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

American usage

The idea that Nabisco's name is somehow ironic seems to be based on the false idea that all American biscuits are soft, scone-type things. Not so. Lots of old cookie companies had the word "biscuit" in their names. There are plenty of instances of using "biscuit" to refer to crispy things, like Sunshine's "Uneeda biscuit" and Nabisco's "Chicken in a Biskit". We don't get confused just because they're called biscuits. There are also dog biscuits, which are incredibly hard (in fact, the soft ones are usually called "treats", rather than biscuits). Nabisco having the word "biscuit" in its name isn't any stranger than AT&T having the word "telegraph" in its name, or the grocery chain A&P still using the full name of "Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company". The idea of using "biscuit" for something like a cracker or a cookie isn't so unusual in America. It's just old-fashioned. Kafziel ^Talk 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on the old-fashioned usage, but I always assumed "Chicken in a Biskit" was so named because it was suppose to taste like chicken and biscuits in the more modern sense of the word. (Really it tastes more like chicken boullion and grease, of course).Neilmsheldon 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, I am rather certain that everyone is aware of that. It's ironic because an American company has a word with its British meaning in the name due to a change in meaning. That in a few cases the original meaning has been maintained in contrast to the general consensus is an exception, and exceptions don't disprove the rule. The rule is that biscuits are now called cookies, and thus the North American Biscuit Company sells cookies rather than biscuits. That one of their crackers is called "Biskit" doesn't change the fact that it's not a biscuit accoding to American useage of the word. 82.135.86.52 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The biscuit sandwich burst onto the scene primarily through the Hardee's chain of restaurants as an answer to the McDonald's Egg McMuffin. Wow, there is a person who's perception of the world is based upon what they have encountered at fast food restaurants. Somehow I suspect that Sausage biscuits and other biscuit sandwiches may have preceded Hardee's breakfast selections. It's only a hunch. Leondegrance 01:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck there are a number of references to biscuits which appear to be similar to "scones". When travelling the family eat "pan biscuits" which seem to be quickly prepared version similar to pan scones, and when they get settled at a camp where there are ovens, they cook "high biscuits" which in one passage the men eat at breakfast before heading off for work. I assume Steinbeck was fairly well in tune with common "working class" customs and idioms of the day. --MichaelGG (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Chick-fil-A

I removed this restaurant from a list of 'fried chicken' restaurants that serve biscuits. CfA is known for chicken fillet sandwiches, and isn't technically the same as a fried chicken restaurant: it doesn't follow the same model as the other restaurants listed (specializing in serving quantities of whole fried chicken with optional side dishes). Neilmsheldon 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The only difference is the bones. None of them leave bones in the chicken when they serve it in a biscuit. -THB 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not about the food anymore

This article on the food seems to have been replaced by an article about a dog...Dragon guy 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Contest speedy deletion of Biscuit

There is no reason for Biscuit (dog) to be deleted. This page does not reveal any personal info, as fake names are used. The article is not offensive and does not contain offensive or explicit content. It shares funny info and will please the readers. Please do not delete this! Pennybiscuit 15:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability and verifiability to understand why the text you entered was deleted. In addition, even without reading anything about Wikipedia, I think you should be able to understand why we are not pleased to see useful content replaced -- i.e., effectively deleted. Thank you. --Tkynerd 02:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on!

I am an American Cowboy (by cowboy, I'm saying America Lover) and we call them biscuits here in the U.S. I want a good website in AMERICAN English! Not United Kingdom English! And what you call "biscuits" we call cookies. 68.205.128.200 06:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

-Then make one. This is a website for the world, not your insular corner of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.112.32 (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Cowboy, this page clearly shows the difference in definition between the variants of the English language. The fact remains that there is only one English wikipedia and as such it should fairly not dismiss variants other than American English.

Cowboy, would you like Wikipedia to exclude all American English dialects apart from your own? It seems that "biscuit" can mean both things in many parts of America too, even if it doesn't in your local dialect. Yee-ha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.15 (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether there shouldn't in fact be an American wikipedia, since English and American English (aka American) are increasingly different languages.124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The are many of us on both sides of the pond, and elsewhere in the world, who appreciate and welcome the fact that the English Wikipedia is written in international English with differences explained. Other variants of the English language are also included, though perhaps less often. Dbfirs 07:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I just like the fact that over several years people responded seriously to an obvious troll. MultK (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

... whose Geography teacher was evidently biased against the project? Dbfirs 06:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Twice Cooked

Why were they given a name that means twice cooked? 67.188.172.165 00:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Because they were. The first to cook the dough, the second to crisp them - mediaeval ovens were not particularly efficient. The earliest reference I have yet found is to Joannis of Cureghem (d.1358), the Good Cook of the Priory of Groenendael outside Brussels - and nicknamed for his Speculoos biscuits, which may be the largest biscuits on routine sale in the world: although most are finger-sized, some at Christmas time in Brussels exceed the UK harvest sheaf loaves in size, and some can be the height of a man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.133.116 (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Difference in terms

I still find the difference between biscuit and cookie confusing in terms of terminology. In Australia, the only thing referred to as a cookie is the classic choc chip cookie. All other sweet biscuits are generally referred to as biscuits, but I gather that in the US, any sweet biscuit is a cookie. ANyone care to explain. The differences make this article extremely confusing; I guess the aim should be to give the broadest worldwide view. Tarcus (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's sweet, we call it a cookie. If it's not sweet, though, we generally call it a cracker. To be honest, living in London the last year I was always puzzled by the apparent need for everything to be either sweet or savoury. What about saltines? Is salty "savoury"?

In any case, I'm curious, if someone could help me back, what the things we in the US call biscuits are called in other parts of the Anglosphere. That is, the warm, soft biscuits that one has with a pat of butter, with dinner. The article links to scones as the main article on the topic, but scones are quite hard and are things I've generally only seen for sale at coffee shops and the like; they're not biscuits. So, if you were to have small, warm, buttered breads with dinner in Britain, Australia, or elsewhere, what would you call them? Cheers. LordAmeth (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally, we don't have them. If I'm going to have a bread with my meal, it would be a dinner roll, but that is baked and has a crusty surface, and is not what the US calls a biscuit. I've never seen what you are talking about served like that except by Americans. DancingFool (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

IN Australia, and I'm pretty sure in Commonwealth (former English) countries, what you refer to is a scone. In Australia, you would normally have them with jam and cream or the like as part of a spiffy afternoon tea, also known as Devonshire tea. Tarcus (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a northern Brit, a biscuit is a flattish, hard-ish thing, and usually at least slightly sweet. Anything resembling, say, an Oreo. They might have chocolate on or in them, be sandwich-type affairs (like the Oreo), or whatever. A British cookie is not a separate item, but a subtype of biscuit. In all my experience, cookie exclusively refers to biscuits studded with something else - along the lines of a chocolate chip cookie, but it could be bits of nut, ginger, etc. I don't agree with the comment on 'cookie' being used for softer biscuits, but it may be a new southern useage. Finally, a scone is a soft, cake-like foodstuff, usually 3-5" across. They are usually sweet and speckled with dried fruit, but you get plain and savoury ones too. Mostly they're for 'afternoon tea' as DancingFool says. I can't recognise the 'biscuit' LordAmeth is describing as anything I've eaten.

I'd say we don't have an encompassing word for the American soft "biscuit". I expect they would be called their more specific name such as Scones and such; I expect they would usually be considered a sort of Cake or Scone here in the UK. I.e. If put in a cupboard, Cakes, sweet Scones, sweet Pastries and sweet Pies would be lumped together. Biscuits (cookies) would have their own special place in the Biscuit Barrel (cookie jar), though may share this sacred place with Jaffa Cakes. Chocolate biscuits/bars such as Mars/Penguins/Snickers (*coughMarathoncough*) go anywhere :P. Chocolate Chip Cookies, being American, are known as Cookies, though everyone can automatically translate an American saying cookie as meaning biscuit. MMMM Biscuits!! Bourbons dipped in tea!! --Kurtle (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The closest thing to what LordArneth is talking about is a scone - he's had some hard ones, but maybe they were rock cakes but called scones. Most scones at least now are soft. You eat them with butter and jam, or clotted cream and jam, or even honey and butter, but I wouldn't associate them with cakes, pastries or pies myself. And I'm very familiar with both British and American food, having lived for decades in each country. Some types of US biscuit have no UK equivalent though - I'm thinking of the flaky ones particularly. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Purely anecdotally I'm currently about to serve a dish of corned beef and cabbage accompanied by biscuits, from recipes on an American site - I'm in Australia - and the recipe is identical to plain (unsweetened) scones. A very soft dough of self raising flour, butter and milk cooked quickly in a very hot oven. When made fresh they are soft and crumbly. When allowed to cool and sold at bakeries they are often quite firm. --MichaelGG (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Savoury biscuits in the UK

I'm a bit sceptical of the following paragraph in the British biscuits section:

Although there are many regional varieties, both sweet and savoury, "biscuit" is generally used to describe the sweet version. Sweet biscuits are commonly eaten as a snack and may contain chocolate, fruit, jam, nuts or even be used to sandwich other fillings. Savoury biscuits, more often called crackers or crispbreads, are plainer and commonly eaten with cheese following a meal.

While it's probably true that biscuit is used for sweet products more often than savoury, this is only because sweet biscuits are much more common overall IMHO. I'm particularly confused by the assertion that savoury biscuits are "more often called crackers or crispbreads".

Cracker: While one of the most common savoury biscuits in the UK is the "cream cracker", I've rarely heard the term "cracker" used for other types such as water biscuits and crispbread. When I have, it's usually been by an American -- the OED says this about the word cracker in the sense of a biscuit:

9. a. A thin hard biscuit. (Now chiefly in U.S.)[5]

I'd say the comparison between this search and this one might be seen as informative. Many of the results from the first search aren't even talking about biscuits, note.

Crispbread: this is plain wrong. Certainly I've only never heard crispbread used for anything other than a specific type of savoury biscuit like Ryvita.

I think whoever wrote this paragraph may have been confused by the fact that cream crackers and crispbreads are two of the most common types of savuory biscuit in the UK, but I don't think they are applied generally. For example, I've never heard a water biscuit or oatcake called cracker or crispbread.

Casper Gutman (talk • contributions) 10:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's a North-South thing, but I've always know water biscuits to be a type of cracker. Not sure about Ryvita type thing. --Kurtle (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

added dog biscuit

this could really use a photo FiveRings (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"In the United States, there is a growing tendency to refer to sweet variations as 'scone'"

Is this usage regional? I'm an American from the Midwest (southeastern Illinois, to be exact) and I'm used to calling the savory variation a biscuit and the sweet variation a scone, and I don't recall hearing anyone else saying "biscuit" when I'd say "scone." --Evice (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand that either. Also speaking as a Midwesterner (Wisconsin), I'd have to say that biscuits here simply didn't have a "sweet variation" until scones started showing up in the trendy bakeries and coffee shops in the late 80's and early 90's. Therefore, to a Midwesterner, a scone *is* a sweet variation. 63.87.189.17 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A scone is not the same as a (US English] biscuit, surely!124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

removing debauchery

The problem with the description of the biscuit race is not so much that it is debauchery, but rather that it belongs on the disambiguation page. FiveRings (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's already mentioned at the article soggy biscuit. Graham87 13:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Added to disambig page. Sheesh. FiveRings (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dog biscuit fact and fiction:

I want to see scientific evidence as proof that dog biscuits clean dog teeth. Actually dog biscuits do rot a dogs teeth, our labradore-rottweiler cross breed will attest to that, as a legacy of the previous owners who over fed her copious quantities of dog biscuits. Fatboycsaba (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

A standardized definition of the term biscuit is needed....

because it is critical with the coverage and exclusion of the cereal-based products.--222.64.20.206 (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If we can't even standardise "standardize", what hope have we for "biscuit"? Dbfirs 07:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A specification for the heavy metal limits of the products???

The published standard of Codex Alimentarius doesn't seem to mention this trait--222.64.20.206 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the following is FYI http://www.springerlink.com/content/g6124mvq43873x03/ --222.64.20.206 (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

tim tams are iconic now?

i am not sure if tim tams should be listed as a "famous Australasian biscuit variety"

any thoughts?

King-hobo (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Chocolate Chip Cookie

I'm pretty sure that chocolate chip cookies are simply called chocolate chip cookies in the UK. They don't call them chocolate chip biscuits. In fact, I think they call things biscuits if they're crunchy and cookies if they're soft and chewy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.141.109 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Chocolate chip cookie" is a brand known world-wide. But the fact remains that cookie, while understood elsewhere, is not properly used outside the USA. The rest of the world generally uses biscuit. We do understand what cookies are, though. The term is not, as far as I am aware, used in the UK for a soft and chewy biscuit.124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should use the chocolate chip cookie as the lead image in this article. It certainly isn't a typical "biscuit" in either British or American usage. Lou Sander (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they are "choc chip biscuits" where I live, and the softer home-cooked biscuits are not "cookies". Dbfirs 07:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

But you're in Cumbria. UK supermarkets all sell chocolate chip cookies, own brands, Cadbury's, Fox's, etc. Chocolate chunk cookies also. Tesco Chewy Chocolate Cookies. McVities mini cookies. I agree that it isn't the best picture for biscuit however. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm a long way from a supermarket! Yes, I agree that American styles are being imitated in the UK, but Fox's of Batley have been manufacturing quality biscuits for much longer than any American "cookies"! Anyway, we all agree that the image should be changed. Dbfirs 19:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the new illustration with the "bread scone" and the bourbons. This is much more informative. Dbfirs 11:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard them called Chocolate Chip Biscuits, but they're still considered a type of biscuit. When stale: Biscuits go soft, cakes go hard. --Kurtle (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I might see them advertised as "cookies", but when I put them on a plate and offer them to someone, they are "chocolate chip biscuits", and they are an inferior imitation of the home-made biscuits that I remember. Your "stale" test is the exact distinction I would make. Dbfirs 23:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge of Biscuit (bread)

I propose that the newly created article Biscuit (bread) be merged into this article and redirected to point here. It appears to cover the United States meaning of "Biscuit", a hard or semi-soft, scone-like baked food, which may or may not be sweet. That meaning is already mentioned in this article, and IMO fuller coverage of it should properly be incorporated here. Failing that, more explicit links between the two articles should be created. DES ^(talk) 16:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think there should be a separate article, the distinctions aren't that clear. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically Agreed, but User:Trident13 recently created the other article and has been adding what seems to be good stuff to this one. I think he's still working on the 'project'. If so, decisions on merging should probably wait until he's done. Lou Sander (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

At least, he should be notified of this discussion. I will do so. DES ^(talk) 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please read this discussion on the talkpage of the WP:Food & Drink project, re language confusion. I am just putting in place the discussion there held, creating a series of suitable sub articles to stop the grand language confusion. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, have read that discussion. Indeed you will find that I posted to it, advertising this merge proposal. Clearing up the category confusion seems good to me, although I am not sure that I agree with the solution suggested. Some of the stubs you are creating seem like good ideas to me, and the text you have added to Biscuit and the text that was in Biscuit (bread) when i last looked at that article (some hours ago) generally seem to me to be good text that should stay in Wikipedia. But I am not convinced that having Biscuit and Biscuit (bread) as separate articles is a good idea. And I don't see much in that discussion on the specific issue of whether Biscuit and Biscuit (bread) should exist as separate articles. Of course I am only one editor, and the matter should be settled by consensus, on this page, in accord with the advice of WP:MERGE that merge discussions should usually be on the talk page of the proposed target page. I remain open to arguments for separate articles, and i hope everyone in the discussion will be open to considering the reasons put foreward by other editors. DES ^(talk) 22:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you say, explicitly, why you think that the two articles should remain separate? It seems to me that it is more useful to have discussions of the flatter, harder baked goods known in the UK and elsewhere as "biscuits" in the same article with coverage of the small quick breads known as "biscuits" in the US and (I gather) some other places. That way the reader could more easily compare and contrast the two related but different food items, the history of the word need not be repeated in two articles, a reader need not read two distinct articles to find whatever information is being sought, and in general the presentation is IMO neater and more useful. I don't think the combined information is too large for a single article. If it becomes so the article could of course be split at a later time. DES ^(talk) 22:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Biscuits today" section of this article is currently entirely about the UK/European meaning of the term, without in any way making it clear to the reader that an additional class of things called "biscuits" exists and is covered in a separate article. A merge would handle this issue well. If there is not to be a merge, then the hatnote needs to be clearer, and a link in the "Biscuits today" section should be made to Biscuit (bread). DES ^(talk) 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I don't see the need for two articles. British biscuits and American biscuits are definitely different things, but they are both baked goods called biscuits. If there are good reasons to have two articles, and if there ARE two articles, each should very clearly, and at the top, refer to the other one.

There is also a disambiguation page about 'biscuit', which may or may not have been updated to show the present (and possibly unnecessary) two separate articles. Lou Sander (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I favor merging this. For one thing, both "definitions" are used in the United States: nearly every grocery store sells "tea biscuits" or some such item. Consequently, we can't really say that "In the US, a biscuit is this, and in the UK, a biscuit is this other thing", because it's incorrect. Also, the division is simply not as absolute as it seems at first glance. The decision to call something a "biscuit" or a "cookie" or a "cracker" is often driven by commercial marketing pressures, not by any clear qualities of the products. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Merge Having two articles just creates more confusion. And as Oreos in the UK are call biscuits, it seems pretty clear that WhatamIdoing is right, nomenclature is at times driven by marketing. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Merge No need for two articles. Lou Sander (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Separate the simple reason for moving the information for Biscuit (bread) out of the article Biscuit was for both clarity (its still mentioned as a point of clarity), and secondly so some editorial effort went into improving the information around Biscuit (bread). Putting it back into the Biscuit article will merely resort to the old confused merged article. As a European, I've put more effort into the projects information on Biscuit (bread) than anyone here - in fact, this discussion is longer than the article! Why not put some effort into expanding the article and its sources, than debating what is defined as different item according to Merriam Webster, hence the title I choose for it. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the tag because this discussion is pretty old, and to be honest, pretty inaccurate. It doesn't make a lot of sense to merge these and it seems rather "Americanist" even to suggest it. Yes, you have "tea biscuits" but they are "cookies". Say "biscuit" in America and you're understood to mean the breakfast food that's like a scone. These two foodstuffs do not have much in common, bar being baked. They just share a name. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so there is no need for things with the same name to share an article. Grace Note (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Confusion"

There is no "confusion" about the word, as stated in the etymology section. There are simply two different meanings of the word. Lou Sander (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense. If you asked an American and an English person to bring you a "biscuit", you would get two completely different goods. Grace Note (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful about civility. It is not "nonsense." The word describes two completely different goods, and anyone familiar with it knows that. An encyclopedia should explain the difference and describe the two goods in a neutral way. Lou Sander (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Biscuits for pleasure?

Does anyone else think the 'Biscuits for Pleasure' section should be renamed?

Also, more reference should be made to the meaning of biscuit in other variants of English eg. Australia, New Zealand. In Australia (where I come from) a biscuit is generally a small packaged baked good eg an Oreo or a Tim Tam while a cookie is a large, round often home-baked variant. -Bozzio (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't like the heading. What else do you suggest? American-style "cookies" have found their way into British shops, though the equivalent home-baked products are still called biscuits in my part of the UK. To my (older) ear, cookies are either small text-files from the internet or strange people. Dbfirs 11:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'd suggest something along the lines of 'Biscuits in history' and 'Biscuits today'. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep! Actually, I think "Biscuits for Pleasure" may be the most perfect subheading in all of wikipedia. Infact, the whole concept of "Biscuits for Pleasure" has revamped my whole perspective on life.

66.108.243.166 (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Moi

Archive 1

Archive 2