This specific drink is very different from the plant itself, which has many uses. Merging would be absurd!
- This has been answered at Talk:Bissap. Guettarda 05:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Please explain why this article should remain separate from Bissap. I can't understand how, under policy, we can possibly have a separate article for usage in a single country. Guettarda 23:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Because this article is about the drink, not about Bissaps in Mexico. This article is not about the plant, but about a unique beverage made from that plant. If we are to merge all beverages with the plants that produce its main ingredient then then chocolate should be merged with cacao, coffee with coffee plant, Horchata with rice, etc., etc., etc. -- Vizcarra 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Have you even bothered to look at the Bissap article? The Bissap article covers the plant and the drink. "Jamaica" is one local name for a drink called "Bissap" in West Africa and "Sorrel" in the Caribbean. So why have a separate article about the Mexican name? The Bissap article is by far the more complete. Guettarda 05:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is the most complete, because it talks about two topics, a plant and a drink produced with this plant. If you merge cacao and chocolate together, it will make one hell of a complete article. But there is no need to put them in one, since they are two differnt topics. -- Vizcarra 06:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Bissap and "Jamaica" are the same topic. You could argue for a separate article at
Hibiscus sabdariffa about the botany, ecology and cultivation of the plant, but it would be excessive given how short the article is. So what we have is two articles about the drink. Can you explain why we should have two article about the drink? It makes absolutely no sense and it violates policy. Your chocolate/cocoa/cacao point is irrelevant, this is totally different (as I said above).
Guettarda
06:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, they are not the same topic. One of them is a plant [bissap], the other one is a drink [Jamaica (drink)]. Choc/cacao relevant because it is almost a perfect comparison. Another reason to having them as two separate articles if for listing in categories. This is one of the
Category:Aguas frescas Mexican drinks sold in Mexico and Mexican restaurants in the US. It is representative of the Mexican cuisine and of culture. We shouldn't just merge them just because Bissap is a brief article, in that case Bissap should be expanded to a similar quantity of information other plants have. --
Vizcarra
19:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Would it be too much of a burden for you to go across and read the article? The bissap article covers the plant and the drink. Based on your description, "Jamaica" is exactly the same was what we call sorrel in the Caribbean. If you insist on having a separate article for the drink, then it should be under sorrel (drink) because that's the English name for the drink. But more to the point, what part of Wikipedia policy allows for separate articles for the same thing in different countries? Or are you proposing that we have a separate article for every food or drink as used in every country?
Guettarda
19:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I may be beside the point here, but the Jamaica drink looks very much like a variety of hibiscus tea to me, and many versions of that beverage exist around the world. The entry on
bissap (which I would prefer to see at its systematic name
Hibiscus sabdariffa to prevent fights about people using the local name) is about that specific plant. Why not move
Jamaica (drink) to
Hibuscus tea and leave a redirect, and then expand the article to include varieties from all over the world?
Pilatus
01:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- We shouldn't choose a neutral name to prevent a "fight". We should use the most appropriate name. In this case Roselle for the plant (#1, it is in English, #2 it is more common than its African name). -- Vizcarra 06:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I may be beside the point here, but the Jamaica drink looks very much like a variety of hibiscus tea to me, and many versions of that beverage exist around the world. The entry on
bissap (which I would prefer to see at its systematic name
Hibiscus sabdariffa to prevent fights about people using the local name) is about that specific plant. Why not move
Jamaica (drink) to
Hibuscus tea and leave a redirect, and then expand the article to include varieties from all over the world?
Pilatus
01:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Would it be too much of a burden for you to go across and read the article? The bissap article covers the plant and the drink. Based on your description, "Jamaica" is exactly the same was what we call sorrel in the Caribbean. If you insist on having a separate article for the drink, then it should be under sorrel (drink) because that's the English name for the drink. But more to the point, what part of Wikipedia policy allows for separate articles for the same thing in different countries? Or are you proposing that we have a separate article for every food or drink as used in every country?
Guettarda
19:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, they are not the same topic. One of them is a plant [bissap], the other one is a drink [Jamaica (drink)]. Choc/cacao relevant because it is almost a perfect comparison. Another reason to having them as two separate articles if for listing in categories. This is one of the
Category:Aguas frescas Mexican drinks sold in Mexico and Mexican restaurants in the US. It is representative of the Mexican cuisine and of culture. We shouldn't just merge them just because Bissap is a brief article, in that case Bissap should be expanded to a similar quantity of information other plants have. --
Vizcarra
19:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Bissap and "Jamaica" are the same topic. You could argue for a separate article at
Hibiscus sabdariffa about the botany, ecology and cultivation of the plant, but it would be excessive given how short the article is. So what we have is two articles about the drink. Can you explain why we should have two article about the drink? It makes absolutely no sense and it violates policy. Your chocolate/cocoa/cacao point is irrelevant, this is totally different (as I said above).
Guettarda
06:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- The naming of the plant should be discussed at
Bissap, where the entry on the plant currently is. That entry states that "Jamaica" is the Mexican name for the plant. The article also states that 700 tons of H. sabdariffa are grown in Senegal each year. Considering that Hibiscus tea is popular all over the world I remain unconvinced that the name used in Mexico is the most appropiate name for the beverage.
Pilatus
14:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- That is why we have
wikipedia:Naming conventions. Which dictates that the English word should be preferred over a native word. Unless that foreign term is more common in English than the English word itself. --
Vizcarra
17:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- (Indentation re-set. It falls of my 800*600 laptop) See, I know the beverage as hibiscus tea, and from what information can be gleaned from the web most often it's prepared from H. sabdariffa. Can other editors weigh in with names and plants to help find a suitable place for this! Pilatus 19:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- That is why we have
wikipedia:Naming conventions. Which dictates that the English word should be preferred over a native word. Unless that foreign term is more common in English than the English word itself. --
Vizcarra
17:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have discussed this at least three times. One can have two separate articles about two separate things. One about the plant, and one about the drink. -- Vizcarra 06:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I just had a jamaica with dinner. Curious as to just what it was made of, I came home, looked it up in Wikipedia, and came straight to this article (after a brief stopover in Jamaica but that's okay). That is Wikipedia at its best - apolitical, POV-free, tasty. Of course this article should stay here, the drink is not the plant. - EDM 05:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The image in this article ( Image:JamaicaDrink.jpg) does not currently have any source or copyright information - and so it can now be deleted. I've looked around on google images for the original image but can't source it. Does anyone here know where its from or have a free replacement image they could upload? Cheers Agnte 18:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
#c-Agnte-2005-11-15T18:38:00.000Z-JamaicaDrink.jpg){kind=link}
- Found it. Can anyone comment on fair use? Pilatus 04:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- bissap+drink = 597
- jamaica drink mexico -rum -kingston -jamaican -caribe -bar -"ocho rios" = 895,000
- "bissap drink" = 5
- "jamaica drink" = 516
- bissap+beverage = 357
- jamaica+beverage+mexico = 866,000
- bissap+hibiscus+drink = 191
- jamaica+hibiscus+drink = 71,300
Therefore, "jamaica" as a term is more popular than "bissap" for the drink. Therefore naming convention dictates "jamaica" as the term to use. -- Vizcarra 19:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This isn't a question of where the article should be (obviously as per Wikipedia policy it should be under sorrel, since that's the name in English) - you keep insisting that there should be two articles. As for "Jamaica+drink" please exclude those which refer to the island.
You left out
- "bissap" - 29,100 hits
- sorrel + drink - 172,000 hits
- "sorrel drink" - 1040 hits
and the fact that 5 of the top 10 hits under "jamaica drink" do not refer to this at all, but refer to things like the Jamaica Drink Company, which is a Jamaican soft drink company, and Jamaica drink recipes, which is a list of alcoholic mixed drinks. Thus, sorrel wins hands down. Guettarda 19:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- "This isn't a question of where the article should be". Yes it is, since I brought it up. -- Vizcarra 22:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- If we take the results for sorrel with the most hits, then it is 172,000 vs almost .9 million for jamaica drink mexico -rum -kingston -jamaican -caribe -bar -"ocho rios" = 895,000. This should give us an idea of what people will look for to find this drink. -- Vizcarra 22:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I raise you 739000 hits for 'hibiscus tea'. Pilatus 23:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
can the new flavor of koolaid JAMAICA be added into this entry?
also there are other aguas de frescas by koolade as well..
This specific drink is very different from the plant itself, which has many uses. Merging would be absurd!
- This has been answered at Talk:Bissap. Guettarda 05:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Please explain why this article should remain separate from Bissap. I can't understand how, under policy, we can possibly have a separate article for usage in a single country. Guettarda 23:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Because this article is about the drink, not about Bissaps in Mexico. This article is not about the plant, but about a unique beverage made from that plant. If we are to merge all beverages with the plants that produce its main ingredient then then chocolate should be merged with cacao, coffee with coffee plant, Horchata with rice, etc., etc., etc. -- Vizcarra 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Have you even bothered to look at the Bissap article? The Bissap article covers the plant and the drink. "Jamaica" is one local name for a drink called "Bissap" in West Africa and "Sorrel" in the Caribbean. So why have a separate article about the Mexican name? The Bissap article is by far the more complete. Guettarda 05:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is the most complete, because it talks about two topics, a plant and a drink produced with this plant. If you merge cacao and chocolate together, it will make one hell of a complete article. But there is no need to put them in one, since they are two differnt topics. -- Vizcarra 06:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Bissap and "Jamaica" are the same topic. You could argue for a separate article at
Hibiscus sabdariffa about the botany, ecology and cultivation of the plant, but it would be excessive given how short the article is. So what we have is two articles about the drink. Can you explain why we should have two article about the drink? It makes absolutely no sense and it violates policy. Your chocolate/cocoa/cacao point is irrelevant, this is totally different (as I said above).
Guettarda
06:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, they are not the same topic. One of them is a plant [bissap], the other one is a drink [Jamaica (drink)]. Choc/cacao relevant because it is almost a perfect comparison. Another reason to having them as two separate articles if for listing in categories. This is one of the
Category:Aguas frescas Mexican drinks sold in Mexico and Mexican restaurants in the US. It is representative of the Mexican cuisine and of culture. We shouldn't just merge them just because Bissap is a brief article, in that case Bissap should be expanded to a similar quantity of information other plants have. --
Vizcarra
19:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Would it be too much of a burden for you to go across and read the article? The bissap article covers the plant and the drink. Based on your description, "Jamaica" is exactly the same was what we call sorrel in the Caribbean. If you insist on having a separate article for the drink, then it should be under sorrel (drink) because that's the English name for the drink. But more to the point, what part of Wikipedia policy allows for separate articles for the same thing in different countries? Or are you proposing that we have a separate article for every food or drink as used in every country?
Guettarda
19:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I may be beside the point here, but the Jamaica drink looks very much like a variety of hibiscus tea to me, and many versions of that beverage exist around the world. The entry on
bissap (which I would prefer to see at its systematic name
Hibiscus sabdariffa to prevent fights about people using the local name) is about that specific plant. Why not move
Jamaica (drink) to
Hibuscus tea and leave a redirect, and then expand the article to include varieties from all over the world?
Pilatus
01:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- We shouldn't choose a neutral name to prevent a "fight". We should use the most appropriate name. In this case Roselle for the plant (#1, it is in English, #2 it is more common than its African name). -- Vizcarra 06:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I may be beside the point here, but the Jamaica drink looks very much like a variety of hibiscus tea to me, and many versions of that beverage exist around the world. The entry on
bissap (which I would prefer to see at its systematic name
Hibiscus sabdariffa to prevent fights about people using the local name) is about that specific plant. Why not move
Jamaica (drink) to
Hibuscus tea and leave a redirect, and then expand the article to include varieties from all over the world?
Pilatus
01:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Would it be too much of a burden for you to go across and read the article? The bissap article covers the plant and the drink. Based on your description, "Jamaica" is exactly the same was what we call sorrel in the Caribbean. If you insist on having a separate article for the drink, then it should be under sorrel (drink) because that's the English name for the drink. But more to the point, what part of Wikipedia policy allows for separate articles for the same thing in different countries? Or are you proposing that we have a separate article for every food or drink as used in every country?
Guettarda
19:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, they are not the same topic. One of them is a plant [bissap], the other one is a drink [Jamaica (drink)]. Choc/cacao relevant because it is almost a perfect comparison. Another reason to having them as two separate articles if for listing in categories. This is one of the
Category:Aguas frescas Mexican drinks sold in Mexico and Mexican restaurants in the US. It is representative of the Mexican cuisine and of culture. We shouldn't just merge them just because Bissap is a brief article, in that case Bissap should be expanded to a similar quantity of information other plants have. --
Vizcarra
19:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Bissap and "Jamaica" are the same topic. You could argue for a separate article at
Hibiscus sabdariffa about the botany, ecology and cultivation of the plant, but it would be excessive given how short the article is. So what we have is two articles about the drink. Can you explain why we should have two article about the drink? It makes absolutely no sense and it violates policy. Your chocolate/cocoa/cacao point is irrelevant, this is totally different (as I said above).
Guettarda
06:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- The naming of the plant should be discussed at
Bissap, where the entry on the plant currently is. That entry states that "Jamaica" is the Mexican name for the plant. The article also states that 700 tons of H. sabdariffa are grown in Senegal each year. Considering that Hibiscus tea is popular all over the world I remain unconvinced that the name used in Mexico is the most appropiate name for the beverage.
Pilatus
14:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- That is why we have
wikipedia:Naming conventions. Which dictates that the English word should be preferred over a native word. Unless that foreign term is more common in English than the English word itself. --
Vizcarra
17:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- (Indentation re-set. It falls of my 800*600 laptop) See, I know the beverage as hibiscus tea, and from what information can be gleaned from the web most often it's prepared from H. sabdariffa. Can other editors weigh in with names and plants to help find a suitable place for this! Pilatus 19:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- That is why we have
wikipedia:Naming conventions. Which dictates that the English word should be preferred over a native word. Unless that foreign term is more common in English than the English word itself. --
Vizcarra
17:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have discussed this at least three times. One can have two separate articles about two separate things. One about the plant, and one about the drink. -- Vizcarra 06:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I just had a jamaica with dinner. Curious as to just what it was made of, I came home, looked it up in Wikipedia, and came straight to this article (after a brief stopover in Jamaica but that's okay). That is Wikipedia at its best - apolitical, POV-free, tasty. Of course this article should stay here, the drink is not the plant. - EDM 05:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The image in this article ( Image:JamaicaDrink.jpg) does not currently have any source or copyright information - and so it can now be deleted. I've looked around on google images for the original image but can't source it. Does anyone here know where its from or have a free replacement image they could upload? Cheers Agnte 18:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Found it. Can anyone comment on fair use? Pilatus 04:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- bissap+drink = 597
- jamaica drink mexico -rum -kingston -jamaican -caribe -bar -"ocho rios" = 895,000
- "bissap drink" = 5
- "jamaica drink" = 516
- bissap+beverage = 357
- jamaica+beverage+mexico = 866,000
- bissap+hibiscus+drink = 191
- jamaica+hibiscus+drink = 71,300
Therefore, "jamaica" as a term is more popular than "bissap" for the drink. Therefore naming convention dictates "jamaica" as the term to use. -- Vizcarra 19:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This isn't a question of where the article should be (obviously as per Wikipedia policy it should be under sorrel, since that's the name in English) - you keep insisting that there should be two articles. As for "Jamaica+drink" please exclude those which refer to the island.
You left out
- "bissap" - 29,100 hits
- sorrel + drink - 172,000 hits
- "sorrel drink" - 1040 hits
and the fact that 5 of the top 10 hits under "jamaica drink" do not refer to this at all, but refer to things like the Jamaica Drink Company, which is a Jamaican soft drink company, and Jamaica drink recipes, which is a list of alcoholic mixed drinks. Thus, sorrel wins hands down. Guettarda 19:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- "This isn't a question of where the article should be". Yes it is, since I brought it up. -- Vizcarra 22:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- If we take the results for sorrel with the most hits, then it is 172,000 vs almost .9 million for jamaica drink mexico -rum -kingston -jamaican -caribe -bar -"ocho rios" = 895,000. This should give us an idea of what people will look for to find this drink. -- Vizcarra 22:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I raise you 739000 hits for 'hibiscus tea'. Pilatus 23:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
can the new flavor of koolaid JAMAICA be added into this entry?
also there are other aguas de frescas by koolade as well..