Talk:Vienna bread

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Research related to steam oven and Vienna bread

I'm not yet inspired as to how to include these in the article, and thought they might get lost. Feel free to add snippets of them to the article because you became inspired to do so if you think they're applicable.

1. 1843 (-32 yrs): Correspondence saying how Vienna bakers cleaned their ovens with water-soaked straw provided a steam effect, but which also states some physical construction measurements regarding a Paris bakery steam oven that existed back then, including a hearth with an inclined plane rising more the farther back from the door.
   A sketch diagram, either of such an oven or a similar one, is found in Vienna Bread: instructions and recipes by Charles Scott and James Scott, originally published in 1909 and republished in 2008, on page 25. Gzuufy (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
2. E. Braun, 1902 (+35): A 1903 baker's industry manual with a number of mentions of Vienna and steam. Page 635 seems to start a comprehensive discussion of various types of ovens used in bakery shops around the world, including illustrations. This book's cover is assigned page 297, says it's only Vol.II. The first section is Baking in France. In the section starting on page 330 titled, The Baking Industry in Austria, subtitled, "Baker Organizations in Austria", on page 333 text says, "The old Vienna ovens have a solid clay hearth and are slanting. The ovens are filled with wood (the front part), which is fired and after the ashes are drawn out it is swapped three or four times." It says "old" ovens without specifying a precise year, this work published 35 years from exposition year, 1867. It seems that the first section after a brief explanations of the bakers union or unions of the day and journeymen and such is a new subsection devoted to Vienna bread, (Vienna is logically grouped with Austria, which makes sense as the capital city), page 332, titled "What made Vienna Bakers Famous the World Over." A few paragraphs or pages down, "With the improved continuous steam patent bake ovens of the present time ...."
3. P. Richards, 1907 (+40): hotel recipe book, we can see the Vienna and steam connection persisting (up to at least pg 110). More recipes than discussion, but curious evolution of related recipes, and there's often a little discussion interspersed. On page 102, "The Vienna ovens are built to hold steam. They are built with a sloping hearth, so that the oven space is above the door. When the door is opened, the steam stays in the oven and does not escape. Other ovens have steam attached."
4. Hui et al. 2006 (+139): A modern discussion of the use of steam in bread baking. Three uses: appearance, rise inhibition related to drying crust, and why steam heat penetrates faster into the baking dough.
5. J. Chevallier, 2009 (+142): August Zang and the French Croissant seems to be worth further study to understand the relationship of Vienna bread to steam. Pages 25-26 seem right on topic.

Gzuufy (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Motion blur

why is the Vienna bread image so intense and dramatic? 95.147.174.12 (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, but I love it

Useless links

An editor wishes to include links to German-language articles from this one. They seem to have forgotten that this is English Wikipedia, written for English speakers. Making a few of the links go to German language articles is obviously pointless. The user's most recent edit summary said of such links: "they add value for multilingual readers, suggest new English-language articles to be created, facilitate semantic data-mining, etc"

• We are not here to add value for multilingual readers. This is English Wikipedia, not Multilingual Wikipedia. It is screamingly obvious that when you click on a link in English Wikipedia, you expect to be taken to an English language article. If you happen to speak German, you can read German Wikipedia, and there, you expect your links to take you to German language articles. If you speak Japanese, you can read Japanese Wikipedia, where links take you to Japanese articles. And so on, and so on. How that could not be obvious to anybody, I do not know.
• These links explicitly take away the suggestion for an English-language article to be created, which red links provide.

The rest of the edit summary is just nonsense. It seems this editor is trying so hard to justify their disruptive editing that they have convinced themselves that non-English links are actually more valuable than English ones.

Assuming that readers of English Wikipedia might like to read about a particular subtopic of the article in German instead of English is frankly bizarre. These links are not useful at all. 101.98.126.25 (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see the relevant documentation on the subject of interlanguage links. Their usefulness is well-established, and your accusations are groundless. I would have no objection to using the {{ill}} template, as 55,000 other pages do (e.g., "Adolf Ignaz Mautner von Markhof"). In fact, this would be slightly preferred, although in practice I think the meaning of the paler blue link is only fractionally less evident. What you claim is "not useful at all" is, at worst, suboptimal typography. XOR'easter (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The fact that such links can be made is established. Neither common sense nor anything on the page you linked to supports your bizarre belief that they should be made. This is English Wikipedia! Links go to English articles! How is it that you're not grasping this? I think you are motivated by some sense that my edits are a personal slight, and you've completely lost sight of the goal of creating a high quality encyclopaedia. 101.98.126.25 (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You certainly appear to be trying to personally slight me, by calling me self-deluded. But since you seem to antagonize editors wherever you go — you've been warned by at least three people other than me [1][2][3] — I can't feel too special. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)