Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Beverages Task Force/restructure

message: This information was copied verbatim from Talk:List of cocktails, which is where the discussion started. Please add new comments to a new section below. Thanks.
I am going to start working on a more thorough categorization and listing of cocktails.  Comments on the following:
*I would like to see this page become an alphabetical list of all of the cocktails in the database, without cagegorization or description.
*Links on this page to individual pages which categorize drinks, such as "Cocktails with Rum", "Cocktails with Amaretto", "Fizzes", "Flips", "Sours" (note that these individual pages would have overlap, since a drink can both contain rum and be a fizz)
* A new page with something like "Historical Cocktail Styles" (please, suggest a better title) with sections on "Cobblers", "Sangrees", etc.  These are of historical importance, but there is not much to say other than what their defining features are and the standard variations.
* I would like to standardize language when referring to groups of cocktails, e.g., sours, fizzes, etc.  Different articles use different works, which can be confusing.  Possible options are:
** Class
** Style
** Category
** Type
Philvarner 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prior discussion

message: (moved from archived section, I believe this is refering to my comment that it's not where you go for Friday night drinks)
I am aware wikipedia is not for convienience of making drinks. However wikipedia is for acessible information for anyone. This includes someone making a drink thuglastalk|edits 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point what that, if there is a conflict between making the content encyclopedic and making it convenient for finding a drink to make, we should err on the side of encyclopedic.  If people just "want to find a drink to make", they should either use another website or the Wikibook - not the encyclopedia. Philvarner 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment by thuglas 

message: Hi. I'm on a bit of an unexpected wikibreak right now. I was practically computerless for the past week. I will be out of town for the next few days, and then I have to catch-up on all the backlog of work that I'm falling farther behind in the real world. I am still very much interested in this topic, and I have several comments to add, but I am leaving town in a few hours and still have to pack, so I can't comment now. I should be able to resume Wikiing again around the 25th. I might be able to squeeze in some dial-up connection time (ugh) while I am away, but that's to be determined.
I will say that the Friday night purposes and the Gilmore Girls inspired research are both equally valid uses of an encyclopedia. As long as we make it VERY easy for the Friday nighter's to locate exact recipes (i.e., direct links to such on WikiBooks and other generally accepted sites), then in many articles an exact recipe is not necessary. However, if we can't agree on a way to link to such information, then the information should appear in the articles. I also think that to achieve Good Article or Featured Article status (or even an "A" classification), leaving out that information will not cut it. In other words, as the quality and length of the article increases, it becomes more important to include the recipe, or more than one (original, traditional, contemporary, etc.), but to do so in a way that really flows like an encyclopedia article -- not like a cookbook with recipe after recipe scattered around.
--Willscrlt (Talk) 07:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bwah-ha-ha... my evil plan can now be hatched... But seriously, I've made a couple of new pages the merge content into: Highball (cocktail), Duo and trio cocktails, and Vermouth cocktail, (to get rid of the "Other classic cocktail" page) and I'm going to concentrate on cleaning up existing pages now.  Philvarner 07:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, no rash decisions or major changes 

message: That's a lot of information to take in all at once!!  I think we need to break this down into more manageable chunks.  As far as I can see, there are four areas of discussion.  Can we try and break this discussion down into its constituent parts?  (Happy-melon 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Woah!!

message: I'd love to see a portal, but I think it's a while down the road.  At the moment I don't feel in a position to think about the contents or format of that, but I guess we'd want to include cocktails, beer and wine mixes, drinkware etc, as well as sections on the as-yet entirely theoretical cocktail personalities and famous cocktail-related places.  Happy-melon 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Development of a portal

message: Deciding and then enacting major changes to article style is not really my cup of tea, so I won't be able to contribute much to this area.  For now the policy of gutting short articles and making them redirects to the LoC is working fine.  Phase one would seem to be the completion of this program.  Phase two, of course, is the much more difficult task of converting all those redirects back into fully-fledged articles!  This is the much harder, much longer task.  Happy-melon 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style of articles and final destination of short articles

message: It seems to me that WikiBooks should eventually hold a substantial recipe book, of which each drink should form only one chapter.  The 'textbook' we'd be trying to create there is a recipe book enabling a bartender to easily look up how to mix an obscure drink a customer has just asked for.  The contents of the Infobox should comprise the majority of the information in the WikiBooks articles.  History, popularity, culture etc all belongs in the Wikipedia articles (although of course the respective articles on each project should be cross-referenced).  Although WikiBooks has been a dumping ground for cocktail stubs, these often contain no more information than a basic recipe or ingredient list, which is a good foundation for a wikibooks article.  I'll be focusing mainly on the wikipedia articles, but co-ordination and minimisation of duplication between projects will also be a goal.  Happy-melon 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship with WikiBooks

message: Categories are extremely useful to suplement, and in some cases replace, the LoC.  For instance, at the head of each section of the LoC could (should?) be a link to "Category: Cocktails with XX", for a comprehensive, alphabetical list of cocktails which might be more up to date than the LoC.  For that reason, I think that the LoC needs to be more than just a list of cocktails - I'd like to see a very brief description for all the cocktails there, plus pictures etc.  Happy-melon 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of categories

message: There is a lot of text on this page. What, in a nutshell, would be the planned involvement with or impact on other drinks projects - like Beer for example? SilkTork 16:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt we'll want to touch them much, since the "beer people" have set things up.  I definitely don't see any suggestions on structural changes, and only updating beer content when it contradicts cocktail content.  The overlap is obviously in beer cocktails, but I think of this a "beer as an ingredient in another product" rather than "information about beer".  For example, if  a page on Stout says that it's an ingredient in a Garbeldysnort cocktail, and it isn't, then that page would probably be updated, but that's it.   Philvarner 19:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involvement of other Projects in a nutshell