Talk:Club soda

Request for comment

Should "club soda" exist as an article, independently of the article on carbonated water? A loose noose (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see why not. I think as a beverage it has some distinguishing cultural features, in-spite of the fact that in many establishments it may be interchangeably used to refer to carbonated/flavored/sparkling water etc. It's not the ingredients that count so much as the name, which has probably accrued some cultural status and notability along the line. This is speculative, however, and would need sourcing. Edaham (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Please see WP:SPLIT. The information on Club Soda is already included in the information on carbonated water. Currently, as per the opening sentence of that guideline, "If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles" is not met. Keeping it as part of the target might actually be of more benefit to folks researching the subject, by exposing them to similar types of water with carbonation/minerals in them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  But that suggests that the only reason for "writing out" a new article from an existing one (like this) is because the latter is too large. I don't think that size is supposed to be the only determinant of whether or not to split out a topic like this-- lots of other things get used to make that determination including (on some occasions) size (but not this occasion!). A loose noose (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Support - This is obviously an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but we have lots of articles on different styles of carbonated beverages (e.g. Cola, Ginger Ale). I'm not sure why we wouldn't have the same thing for Club Soda. The article for Carbonated Water ought to cover things from a Chemistry angle, while Club Soda ought to cover things from a beverage angle. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• This is not a WP:RFC matter. Please follow directions at WP:SPLIT, including the use of either {{split}} or {{split section}} (not forgetting the |discuss=Talk:Club soda#Request for comment parameter) on the Carbonated water page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  User:Redrose64:I have read over that, but do not think I have the technical expertise to perform this. Can I get some assistance? Thanks! A loose noose (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  @A loose noose: At this stage, this is all that's necessary, other than to continue discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  Um, it appears discussion has ended. I think. What I have is this: it looks like club soda is a kind of carbonated water, but that not all carbonated waters are soda (similar to "All dogs are canines" but "not all canines are dogs", etc.). There doesn't appear to be any opposition, per se, to my suggestion. I had written up an article on club soda, but it got turned back into a redirect to carbonated water. So given all of that, I am wondering if I can turn that redirect back into an article without getting it removed. But I don't want to do that unless I am understanding things here correctly, because I don't want to end up wasting my time. Is the discussion over? How can I know? A loose noose (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  It doesn't appear that there is any more discussion going on. My sense of the discussion above is that having an article on club soda that is separate from the one on carbonated water is maybe not a bad idea, so I am now going to try being bold and recreating the club soda article as a full article. I will then remove the "split" tag from carbonated water. If anyone opposes this move, please let me know here. Thanks! A loose noose (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)