The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Another pointless duplicate by a sockpuppet of Charliewolf79, like Category:Other Game of Death films, bue even without the sockpuppetry there’s no need for this to exist. Should be merged into the parent category, though as far as I can tell all articles already exist in both places. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or reverse merge? with the article on the company as the main article for "films". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do believe it should be reverse merge. We don't seem to need an eponymous category for the company but we would want a category that fits within the larger structure of Fooian Film films, surely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete/merge as proposed. --Tavix(talk) 22:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: in a historically overwhelmingly Christian country it is a too narrow way of categorization to have a Religion tree and a Christianity tree at city level. There are only two articles not about Christianity across these five cities: Islamic Cultural Institute (Milan) and Religion in Rome. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American military people of Manchu descent[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. --Tavix(talk) 22:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, John Fugh, the only person listed, also happens to be a Han Chinese so technically an upmerge would also be appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin (talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The one article has a "Chinese" descent category, so that no merging is needed. This category is too specific to be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on top of what has been said before the one article is already in a Chinese emigrant category, so it doesn't need to be in a Chinese descent category too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial ethnic overcategorization. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate, the target category is more developed. Brandmeistertalk 11:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:procedural close to give User:Oculi the opportunity to follow up with a more complete nomination for a reversed merge. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The recent renames from 'beverages' to 'drinks' appear to be out-of-process, and there are extensive subcat schemes using 'beverages'. (It is much easier to do these renames via consensus at cfd and a bot.) My own preference is 'beverage'; articles are at Drink but also Alcoholic beverage. (There are several more similar out-of-process moves: [1].) Oculi (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This appears to be down to personal preference between "drink" and "beverage", and is based on a misunderstanding of the word "beverage". Drink is the proper term - it is the more commonly used and all embracing term, understood by everyone. Beverage is mostly used by advertisers and restaurateurs, and is less clear as its meaning is not widely understood (people will debate its actual meaning, which tends to vary by user, but nearly always excludes water). I think we need to move away from the commercial and unclear beverage, and stick with the word drink as that means exactly what we intend when we use it: a liquid that is consumed for refreshment or nourishment, and is inclusive of all drinks including water; is the proper word, is the common word, and is the word most used in reliable sources (outside of commercial descriptions). SilkTork✔Tea time 12:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category was at Category:Beverages from 2004 until yesterday and has been moved because someone else has a preference for 'drink' over 'beverage'. There are hundreds of categories named 'beverage' (eg Category:Beverages by country) and moving them one by one is supremely inefficient. If there is consensus for 'drink' then do the renames correctly and efficiently via cfd. Oculi (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hot beverages was created by user:SilkTork in Dec 2007, and was at that name until today. Category:Non-alcoholic beverages was also created by user:SilkTork in Feb 2006, and was at that name until today. I was persuaded to prefer the name 'beverages' by the eloquent rationale of user:SilkTork in their move request in 2007 of Drink to Beverage: "For reasons of simple clarity, ease of use, and to avoid confusion and ambiguity". Unfortunately that move request was unsuccessful, leaving the possibility of ambiguity and confusion over the article name, which rules out Category:Drink and Category:Drinks as suitable names for the categories. Oculi (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was renaming those categories. We don't need bots for this. I've stopped now, given this stupid CfD, but I could've had it sorted by the end-of-the-day if it were not for your obstructionism. RGloucester — ☎ 13:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a process for renaming categories, namely cfd. I would say that moving a category as it it were a page is WP:RASH rather than bold. Drink is not as straightforward as you think: it has strong connotations with alcohol ("Advice is not to drink until the age of 15" Sky News, 1 minute ago.) Oculi (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No such connotations exist. "Drink" means "drink". "Beverage" does not mean anything. Again, if you have a problem with drink, rename that article, then come back here. RGloucester — ☎ 17:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore original category names until/unless there is consensus to rename them all. I don't have an inherent preference for "drinks" or "beverages", but I think consistency is important. The current status where we have a bunch of "beverage" subcategories within a larger "drinks" category is not acceptable. If "beverages" has indeed been used since 2004, its recent rename (along with some of the related categories) is inappropriate without consensus. If that consensus is established, then the whole category tree needs to be renamed. Deli nk (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was informed of this discussion as I created two of the beverage categories. At the time I was following the existing naming convention on Wikipedia. I can't say why "beverage" got such a hold on Wikipedia, but I'm glad someone is now tackling it, as "drink" is the more appropriate term. SilkTork✔Tea time 16:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and rename all unaligned subcategories to 'x drinks' – The main article is at drink, and has been for eternity. There is no reason for the category to be out-of-line with the main article, per WP:EPON. Furthermore, 'beverage' is an un-necessary latinism, which does nothing but obscure the topic of 'drinks' (WP:CONCISE). In any case, I was planning to finish moving the subcategories today. I had nearly finished doing so yesterday. Not sure why this is now at CfD. Strikes me as nothing more than typical Wikipedia obstructionism. Regardless, I'd suggest that if anyone wants 'beverage' to be the title of this category, they try and rename the main article, drink. I would also like to suggest that this would fail horribly, because the word 'beverage' is confusing, not used worldwide, and is longer than the word 'drink' for the sake being longer, which is something we don't do on Wikipedia. In addition, I strongly deny this 'out-of-process' accusation. WP:BOLD edits are not out-of-process, especially when they are made to correct an error in line with Wikipedia policy. RGloucester — ☎ 13:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support renaming all beverage cats to drink. If that had been the case from the start we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The main cat is Food and drink. We are here because in 2004 Category:Beverages was created alongside the already existing Category:Drinks and started to replace it. I assume this was done because the creator thought that "beverages" was a particular form of drink rather than an alternative use by advertisers. Others, like myself, then followed along and created further subcats such as Category:Hot beverages rather than Category:Hot drinks. It is worth noting that other language wikis only have Category:Drinks and related subcats. We are the only language wiki to have this odd divide into drinks and beverages - such is the complex nature of English! SilkTork✔Tea time 16:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Drinks did not exist until it was created in 2016 via an out-of-process page move. In the part of the UK which I inhabit, 'would you like a drink' or 'he has a problem with drink' is not used with say tea or milk. Oculi (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Drink driving' and 'he has a problem with drink' are totally separate from 'drinks'. Without any context, 'drinks' means things that one drinks. What a strange comment to make! As I said below, it does often seem like Wikipedians like to live in their own little worlds... RGloucester — ☎ 17:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore status quo ante. There is Drink, but at the same time there is also Non-alcoholic beverage, so it's not been an uncontroversial move. Also, per Oculi, "drink" is heavily connotated with alcoholic drinks and other preparations, while the use of "drink" for water, pure juice or milk remains to be established. While WP:BOLD edits are out-of-process, they may be either of legitimate, controversial or disruptive. Nobody said your edit was disruptive, but as it turns out controversial, it should better be reverted until the issue is fully settled. --PanchoS (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point being made here is that our occasional usage of "beverage" in either article title or category name is in error because the word drink is more appropriate; thishas been led by the use of "beverage" by advertisers, so we become familiar to it. We see "non-alcoholic beverage" in the menu, and it starts to replace the more appropriate and common usage of "non-alcoholic drink". When Wikipedia starts itself to use this term, it starts to become embedded in our society, and we ourselves become responsible for spreading its usage because Wikipedia is read and copied so much. SilkTork✔Tea time 16:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only a non-native speaker of English would think that 'drink' has 'connotations of alcohol' in this context, or that 'the use of "drink" for water, juice or milk remains to be established'. Wikipedia really likes to live in its own world, I guess. In any case, 'beverage' is labelled 'chiefly in commercial use' by the relevant British dictionary, and can be there for be thrown out on WP:COMMONALITY grounds as well. There is no justification for its use, at all. RGloucester — ☎ 18:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Context is indeed important. If someone were walking in from the desert, and said "I need a drink", they'd likely get water or somesuch. But if someone were coming home from work, and with a sigh, collapsed in their favourite char and said "I need a drink", I think they would be well understood to mean alcohol. - jc37 15:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Generically, 'drink' means anything that one can drink. It can mean a specific type of drink in context of a conversation, but that does not have anything to do with encyclopaedic writing. In this context, the meaning is clear. RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move (or keep?) most to/at Drink/drinks. drink is the anglo saxon word, beverage is french, and fancier. plain is good. the only problems i see are that drink is also a verb, so a little jarring, and it sometimes has a slight connotation of alcohol or "mixed" drinks of various sorts. I was first going to go with beverage, but i think drink is good. beverage does sound like a commercially used word, which i believe others have pointed out is its commonest use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge -- "Drink" is the plain Anglo-Saxon-derived word, normally used. Beverage comes ultimately (via old French from the Latin verb bibere, to drink. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: I'm not clear what 'reverse merge' means in the context of this discussion. Could you please clarify your position on the name of the category? RGloucester — ☎ 17:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The closing Admin will know what reverse merge measns: it measn that "Beverages" should be merged to "drinks", the reverse of the nomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category redirect - From what little research I just did, I think beverage and drink appear to be synonyms, with slight semantic difference in usage. So let's treat this like WP:ENGVAR, pick one, and redirect to it from the other. I have no real opinion on which should be which. - jc37 15:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the community seems to prefer 'drink' in the above discussion. There are 403 categories in all with the word beverage in their name, of which RGloucester has moved 15. If someone could close this I will tag and list all of them at cfd (to extirpate 'beverage' altogether). Oculi (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
