More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
-- 02:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
|Category discussion notification||Category:Superfood has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
I did not create the article. A better case for or against it's creation might better be channeled in that direction.
There seems to be quite a stretch from this particular case, in a vacuum in a sense, given the variety of similar uses of terms of this type, both for marketing and non-marketing purposes. Marketing is by it's very nature the creation of a mental environment around a product or service and is, quite naturally, a subjective process, requiring strong use of psychology and interpretation for adding strength and value.
- * Does this debate run directly counter to that justification which was initially in support of the original entry? Do the counter opinions in the article discounting the term overbear reference in the article, the etymology, indicating that '...The Oxford English Dictionary includes citations for superfood in the general sense of "a food considered especially nutritious or otherwise beneficial to health and well-being," dating from 1915 and 1949, as well as more recent examples..."?
- * Does not the listing for 'junkfood' also represent an equally subjective category, given that no specific determination of whether every food definitely is, or definitely isn't, listed as a 'junk food'? While the opinion of the EU’s approval or disapproval of the use of the term 'superfood', or while the opinion listed of ONE dietician might be factored, it is somewhat random to use such a very narrow selection of opinions to create an all or nothing case.
- * Is not 'junkfood' similarly suspect in lacking merit for continued inclusion due to the terms primary use in marketing?
- * Does the term ‘extreme sports’[] categorically exclude marketing references? Is ‘wing flying’, definitely listed as an ‘extreme’ sport, quantitatively distinct from sky diving, such as to eliminate sky diving from the extreme sports category? Just such an implication is made, ‘…circa the late 1980s/early 1990s..’ from a listing under extreme sports. Specific definitional terms include ‘adrenalin rush’, which is to be distinguished from simple fear or anxiety. Text includes “the definition of extreme sports may have shifted over the years due to marketing trends.”
- * Does the term ‘sport utility vehicle’ as applied to truck-based vehicles, unequivocally apply to vehicles that by their nature have greater capabilities for a ‘sporting’ nature, as compared to other truck-based vehicles? Is there no marketing inference or intention in this term by automakers, creating a subjective influence of the term on their buyers, who might otherwise be less-inclined to refer to their vehicles as ‘trucks’?
My point here is this – we are surrounded by such terms in many categories. The number of cases where this can be applied is gargantuan. The basis for attempting to establish firm judgments from a short list of references or from a short list of opinions on a narrow list of terms is unsound, particularly without further examining the plethora of similar cases which exist in a much wider variety of areas. This is a classic case of the proverbial ‘can of worms’.
|File:Superfood.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Also for File:Superfoods.jpg. Please read COM:L before uploading images. Thank you! If you have any questions feel free to ask me on my talk page or (if related to these both files) at the deletion request page. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)