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.
Yes, "Africa" is used in popular culture in Grand Theft Auto, "America's Got Talent", etc. Yes, it mentions rain. It uses a marimba. All of these things (and many more) are trivially true about the song. To my knowledge, no song is "commonly and consistently define(d)" by its use in this video game as required by Wikipedia:Categorization#Defining. SummerPhDv2.018:08, 30 September 2018 (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.
Comment: I'm not wedded to the category's existing name, but the proposal as constituted isn't quite the right solution either. The problem is that we don't only have articles about individual cafés in the "coffee houses" tree — we also have articles about coffee house chains like Starbucks or Second Cup or Dunkin' Donuts or Tim Horton's or Costa Coffee. But the latter cannot be appropriately described or categorized as "cafés", because the term『café』does not simply mean any place that sells coffee even if it's a generic corporate chain — the term『café』connotes an independent standalone place like the Café de Flore or the Café Anglais, not a franchise chain shop. So the category's existing name was originally designed to cover off both coffee shop chains and standalone independent cafés, because there wasn't a strong consensus that we could justify separating those things into two distinct category trees, and the『cafés』tree only started spinning off much later on. What we need to do is either establish a consensus to separate coffee shop chains from standalone cafés by renaming "coffee houses" to "coffee house chains" but keeping them separate, or reverse merge the other way if consensus favours keeping them together in one tree — the nominator's reasoning doesn't completely pan out, because even if a true standalone independent café in Amsterdam would be more likely called a café, a chained Starbucks or The Bulldog franchise would not. So if the consensus favours keeping them together in one category, then the term that legitimately includes all of them has to be preferenced over the term that wrongs out on some of them. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2018 (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.
Comment: I'm not wedded to the category's existing name, but the proposal as constituted isn't quite the right solution either. The problem is that we don't only have articles about individual cafés in the "coffee houses" tree — we also have articles about coffee house chains like Starbucks or Second Cup or Dunkin' Donuts or Tim Horton's or Costa Coffee. But the latter cannot be appropriately described or categorized as "cafés", because the term『café』does not simply mean any place that sells coffee even if it's a generic corporate chain — the term『café』connotes an independent standalone place like the Café de Flore or the Café Anglais, not a franchise chain shop. So the category's existing name was originally designed to cover off both coffee shop chains and standalone independent cafés, because there wasn't a strong consensus that we could justify separating those things into two distinct category trees, and the『cafés』tree only started spinning off much later on. What we need to do is either establish a consensus to separate coffee shop chains from standalone cafés by renaming "coffee houses" to "coffee house chains" but keeping them separate, or reverse merge the other way if consensus favours keeping them together in one tree — the nominator's reasoning doesn't completely pan out, because even if a true standalone independent café in Berlin or Hamburg would be more likely called a café, a chained Starbucks or Coffee FellowsorDallmayr franchise would not. So if the consensus favours keeping them together in one category, then the term that legitimately includes all of them has to be preferenced over the term that wrongs out on some of them. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While etymologically they are the same, in practice cafés are cheap restaurants, while coffee houses concentrate on serving coffee. Furthermore café is a French word imported into English. Has it also been imported into German? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usage varies from country to country. In practice, of course, we dont have many articles about cheap restaurants, whatever you call them. Most of the articles in Germany are about establishments entitled "café", even though some of the articles use the term coffeehouse. But generally there isnt much information about what was served in them. The issue I am concerned about is that if we have two categories for the same country that implies that there is a real distinction between the articles, and I dont think there is. I dont much care which term we use, I just think we shouldnt be making false distinctions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2018 (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.
Comment: I'm not wedded to the category's existing name, but the proposal as constituted isn't quite the right solution either. The problem is that we don't only have articles about individual cafés in the "coffee houses" tree — we also have articles about coffee house chains like Starbucks or Second Cup or Dunkin' Donuts or Tim Horton's or Costa Coffee. But the latter cannot be appropriately described or categorized as "cafés", because the term『café』does not simply mean any place that sells coffee even if it's a generic corporate chain — the term『café』connotes an independent standalone place like the Café de Flore or the Café Anglais, not a franchise chain shop. So the category's existing name was originally designed to cover off both coffee shop chains and standalone independent cafés, because there wasn't a strong consensus that we could justify separating those things into two distinct category trees, and the『cafés』tree only started spinning off much later on. What we need to do is either establish a consensus to separate coffee shop chains from standalone cafés by renaming "coffee houses" to "coffee house chains" but keeping them separate, or reverse merge the other way if consensus favours keeping them together in one tree. This is a marginally different situation than the others on which I've commented here, in that we only have articles about independent cafés in Paris and none about any French corporate franchise chains that I can point out as examples of the problem — but I still can't justify treating France differently than any other country where we do have articles about franchise chains that can't be catted as cafés. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2018 (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.
NB there is a discussion about the two terms [1]. When that is decided we will, I hope, want to merge the parent categories. But at present it would be helpful to put all the articles in each country into the same category, assuming that there is not an intended distinction being made. Rathfelder (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not wedded to the category's existing name, but the proposal as constituted isn't quite the right solution either. The problem is that we don't only have articles about individual cafés in the "coffee houses" tree — we also have articles about coffee house chains like Starbucks or Second Cup or Dunkin' Donuts or Tim Horton's or Costa Coffee. But the latter cannot be appropriately described or categorized as "cafés", because the term『café』does not simply mean any place that sells coffee even if it's a generic corporate chain — the term『café』connotes an independent standalone place like the Café de Flore or the Café Anglais, not a franchise chain shop. So the category's existing name was originally designed to cover off both coffee shop chains and standalone independent cafés, because there wasn't a strong consensus that we could justify separating those things into two distinct category trees, and the『cafés』tree only started spinning off much later on. What we need to do is either establish a consensus to separate coffee shop chains from standalone cafés by renaming "coffee houses" to "coffee house chains" but keeping them separate, or reverse merge the other way if consensus favours keeping them together in one tree — the nominator's reasoning doesn't completely pan out, because even if a true standalone independent café in Vienna would be more likely called a café, a chained Starbucks or Coffeeshop Company franchise in Vienna would not. So if the consensus favours keeping them together in one category, then the term that legitimately includes all of them has to be preferenced over the term that wrongs out on some of them. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - if only rathfelder would heed repeated requests to combine similar noms. A coffee house or coffeehouse is a type of cafe (a cafe which specialises in coffee). Most cafes are not coffeehouses. There is also Category:Tea houses. There are problems with the naming of both trees as the articles are Coffeehouse and Teahouse. There is also a distinction between Café and Cafe (UK), and chains as opposed to individual shops, per Bearcat. Oculi (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately did not combine these nominations because the terms are used differently in different places. Each category needs consideration separately. But please think about the articles we actually have, not about how you think about these terms. Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The difference between coffee houses, chains of coffee houses, and cafés is a critical cultural shibboleth in Vienna. Indeed, the difference between Kaffeehaus and Espresso is something that can cause collective existential angst around here. There are multiple fat books on the subject. And it's not just a topic for sociologists and marketers, it interacts with wider political history in a few ways. (Kaffeehauskultur = Jews. Jews removed = Kafeehauskultur takes very bad hit.) Merging these categories would be malpractice. Damvile (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While etymologically they are the same, in practice cafés are cheap restaurants, while coffee houses concentrate on serving coffee. Furthermore café is a French word imported into English. Has it also been imported into German? There is a long tradition of coffee houses in Austria going back the period of Turkish siege in the 1680s. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we only have one article about Coffeehouse and cafe together. However the article points out that in contintental Europe cafes also serve alcoholic drinks. The also is quite an understatement, because in practice consumers in cafes in continental Europe primarily buy beers and softdrinks, although usually coffee is still available. So there is a quite a difference between coffee houses (focusing on daytime consumption of coffee and tea) and cafes (focusing on consumption of beers and softdrinks during the late afternoon and evening). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not saying you're wrong, but linguistic caution is advised here. In Vienna, a『café』is a coffee house. Most Austrians had no idea that "cafe" can mean an eatery or a watering hole until the Hard Rock Cafe started to expand into Europe in the 80s. From an Austrian point of view,『café』is simply the French for "Kaffee", and "Kaffee" is a common short form of "Kafeehaus". Damvile (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usage varies from place to place and time to time. But I think we should only have two categories for any one country if it signifies are clear and real distinction. Rathfelder (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2018 (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.
