Translation:Do you have some pancake puffs for me?
OK, I'm standing firm on this one - "Appleskives" is NOT a real word in English, and therefore you can't give it singular, plural, etc! Please take it out of the list. This needs to be translated into something closer to what it really is - I saw "Danish doughnuts" in the possibility list but "pancake balls" would be more descriptive of what they actually are. NOTHING in English can describe how delicious they taste...
I just meant that if Wikipedia is listing it, it's likely being used somewhere, especially since entries are public editable. While not really a definitive source, for the sake of discussion, I think it works. And the problem I've had with recipe books is that you're constrained to whatever names the authors give for their dishes, which I've found don't always match the names that I have learned for dishes.
But aside from that, I'm with you that if a word is being used in common parlance, it should generally be accepted.
The problem with wikipedia in this context is exactly that it is publicly editable. Which is, as it always is with wikipedia, also the good thing in this context. A recipe book would at least imply that it would have been published and, presumably, bought; which means it's not unlikely that the names used in the book are or have been in actual use. The same is true for read-to-eat products. Wikipedia articles may have been edited by, say, a dane who can't find a word to use when translating æbleskiver and so decides to translate it with appleskives or something similar. This means that there may be no realationship between the word itself and the people who are supposed to be using it. It might also just be that someone who does use it, edited the article and added a proper word. I suspect that in 5 years appleskiver is -the- translation for æbleskiver -- being on Wikipedia certainly won't hurt.
Interesting discussion. It's amazing how prescriptive people are about language - "do you have" is no better than "have you got". "Have you" is also perfectly acceptable.
The only distinction between the forms is that "do you have" is more common in American English and "have you got" is the preferred form in British English - the Old English past participle of got, "gotten" having disappeared on this side (Britain) of the Atlantic by the 19th century (though it's currently undergoing a revival, coming back from America).
A general grammatical rule in English is that "some" becomes "any" in a question or a negative sentence. E.g. "You have some friends" but "Have you/Do you have/Have you got any friends?" and "You haven't/You don't have/ You haven't got any friends." So "Do you have any appleskives for me?" should be accepted as a correct translation here.