Talk:Scoop (utensil)

A ice cream scoop is a scoop that scoops up ice creams if u take it apart you'll see its really simple design. People like the old designs better then the new ones i don't know why but i find the old designs also a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.189.42 (talk • contribs)

Removing "ounces" column

I'm removing the current "ounces" column in the article and placing it here for now. It seems it is wildly inaccurate. The "#6" might be 5 1/3 ounce, but my "#12" scoop holds 4 TBS., and that is 2 fluid ounces.

Here are some common sizes:
  6 = 5 1/3 ounce
  8 = 4 oz
 10 = 3 3/4 oz
 12 = 3 1/4 
 16 = 2 3/4
 20 = 2 1/2
 24 = 1 3/4
 30 = 1 1/4
 40 = 7/8
 60 = 9/16
100 = 3/8

MeekMark (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple problems

There are several problems with this article:

• The definition is flawed. Scoops are used in the food industry for far more than serving food, as the body of the article and the pictures illustrate.
• Dishers are not commonly used for ice cream; ice cream is too hard. They are commonly used to serve softer foods (and for portion control) as otherwise noted.
• The second paragraph says there are two types of scoops. Later paragraphs describe three. Make up your mind (IMO there are three). Then divide the article into sections, one section (or subsection) per type, and move the pics to the appropriate type.
• Provide some references/citations.

Dmforcier (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems an example of a problem I've seen on a lot of pages - "Where do you find a "citable source" for an ice cream scoop of all things?" The only thing I can really think of is some online dictionary (online American Heritage Dictionary, ahdictionary.com), or something link Britannica Online ([www.britannica.com/]) - which of course, is one encyclopedia referencing another one..

How is an encyclopedia supposed to come up with a "real source" for something as simple as an ice cream scoop? How do "twentieth century printed edition encyclopedias" handle these problems (other than having "Yale-journalism-school-appointed Professional Editors)?

Of course, Wikipedia works with the standard of "verifiability not truth" - which will work for most stuff, except for things that newspapers, "printed encyclopedia" editors, etc consider to simple to print in a "real source". So what are we left with? A government-sponsored English-As-A-Second-Language website? Jimw338 (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC) (having a bit of a cynical day)

I feel you. But think of it this way. By requiring citations, some people might think twice about dumping "things that they know" onto the page. Frankly, I'm not convinced that this is a proper article at all. A "scoop" is generic term for a (in this context) hand utensil that moves a certain quantity of something. Maybe it should be broken down into - and reference here - articles about specific types of scoop. Those are much easier to cite.

Besides, you will please note that my objections are about internal consistency. Dmforcier (talk) And there's nothing wrong with cynicism. ;-)