Talk:Kraft Dinner/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

its very good

So I noticed somebody added "its very good" randomly at the start of the 2nd or 3rd sentence, seeing as Wikipedia is supposed to be UNBIASED I took this out and my edit was immediately reverted due to not having a "neutral" point of view ¬_¬ *reverted again* signed properly ThePerfectVirus (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Try removing it again, the editor who reverted may have made a mistake. 2help (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What a mess

I am not a fan of tagging articles, but this one is a pathetic mess. Needs cleanup and accuracy. Unschool 02:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Kraft Dinner → Kraft Macaroni and Cheese No consensus - Relisted.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read the comments of the editors above, but I remain unmoved. The Canadian market is less than 10% of the market for this product [though perhaps they do eat 20% of the product :-) ]. More importantly, NOWHERE on the Kraft Website do I see this product referred to as "Kraft Dinner". I'm not doubting that that's how it's sold in the GWN, I'm just saying that 90% of the world calls it Mac & Cheese, not KD, and therefore that's how it should be entitled here. Unschool 17:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

This is a relist of the proposal made in June 2009.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The product started off as Kraft Dinner and was later changed in the US to Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. So I think we should keep the original name. -Firedragon2133 30 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firedragon2133 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
With all respect, that is one of the most specious arguments you could come up with. By that logic, the following articles should all be moved:
  • Corn Pops should be moved to Sugar Pops, its name for the first 25-30 years they were sold
  • Cup Noodles should be moved to Cup O' Noodles, its original name, used for about 20 years
  • American Broadcasting Company should be moved to Blue Network, its original name when created in the middle of World War II
And these are just three that hit me off the top of my head. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds of products and companies with articles in Wikipedia that have had their names changed. Perhaps we should change this article to Leslie King and this article to William Blythe III since those were their "original" names. I'm sorry, but you'll have to come up with a much better reason than that. Unschool 04:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, move it. The Canadian market, regardless of how ravenous for boxed macaroni and cheese product, simply isn't significant when weighed against the entire English speaking world. Unless a term originally came from Canada, Canada's usage simply should not govern. The English Language page says just over 25,000,000 Canadians speak English. That's a little more than half as many English speakers as in the Philippines, fewer than half as many as the UK, not even a third as many as in Nigeria, slightly more than a quarter of that of India and a full tenth of Americas. Heck, more Americans speak English as a second language than Canadians as a whole speak English.
This isn't the colour/color debate. That debate is about Commonwealth English usage vs. American English usage. In other words, a debate between two massive cohorts of English speakers that are fairly evenly matched in terms of numbers.
What this is, is a distinct regionalism masquerading as the accepted name for a product. It would be like directing all searches for chewing tobacco to chaw, simply because that is the name American Southerners use for it, and they tend to use it at a higher rate than other English speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.156.39 (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Why hasn't this been moved to Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. The article itself acknowledges that the only place that refers to it as Kraft Dinner is Canada (an insignificant market compared to the combined weight of the UK and US which the article acknowledges use the term Macaroni and Cheese). And the article admits that Canadian usage is purely nostalgic. This article should be moved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.156.74 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree- I agree that it should be moved, unless more people use the Canadian version than the US version. If that can't be established, I think that we can assume that more of it is eaten in the U.S., and that thus it's name should be the American version. I'm not being chauvinistic about this, just practical. I see that this has been debated occasionally since 2006. Time to move it. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree - The product is from an American company, so the American name should prevail per WP:Common name. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move - per above, but also the fact that Kraft Dinner isn't very descriptive anyways. At least Kraft Macaroni and Cheese explains the product. Also, given that on the front of the (American) box, the word dinner is present, we might consider moving the article to Kraft Macaroni and Cheese Dinner. The Kraft website also refers to the product as Kraft Macaroni and Cheese Dinner. Just a thought...you won't break my heart if it's moved to Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. Just move it, please! PDCook (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment in case anyone is wondering what a box looks like... [1] KD box, from Canada. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
And in the US: Kraft Macaroni and Cheese Dinner. PDCook (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. By the Wikipedia:Search engine test "Kraft Dinner" [2] (127,000) is far ahead of "Kraft Macaroni and Cheese" [3] (36,400).--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - Your search is flawed. A quick review seems to indicate that all results for "Kraft Macaroni and Cheese" are for this product. However, this misses anyone calling it "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese" or, per their ad campaign, "Kraft Cheese and Macaroni". The results for "Kraft Dinner" are a mess. Yes, many refer to this product. Others, however, are merely talking about Kraft products for dinner ("Kraft dinner options", "Kraft dinner selections", "Kraft dinner products", etc.). - SummerPhD (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
You are correct that a significant number of the "Kraft Dinner" results are not relevant to this article. Counting through the first two pages of search results, 10% of the "Kraft Dinner" results are not relevant. Extrapolating generously, reduces the number to 110,000. It's still not close. No search engine test will be perfect. If you have a better comparison please show us.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment 2 - I agree, your search method is flawed. Kraft macaroni and cheese dinner gets 157,000 hits on Google, while other variation go even higher. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you please include a link to your search, so we can see exactly what you have searched for? You can't compare "Kraft dinner" in quotes to Kraft macaroni and cheese dinner without them.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
That search would be "Kraft macaroni and cheese dinner" on "Google". --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
That search is not useful for comparing results with "Kraft dinner" [4]. It includes pages like this [5] which uses the name "Kraft Dinner" in a review of macaroni and cheese varieties.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
That is the point; we're showing you that your search has the same weaknesses as ours. There are too many pages that randomly contain words that are in the phrases being searched out. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see your point. The problem with your Kraft macaroni and cheese dinner search is that it's not surrounded with quotes, to find that exact wording. It can't be used to support the name Kraft macaroni and cheese dinner because it finds things like: "Kraft Dinner (macaroni and cheese)". The search "Kraft dinner" is enclosed in quotes to search for that exact phrase, not all pages that randomly contain words that are in the phrase. I estimated above, that 90% of those search results are relevant. If you think that is unreasonable, please explain why.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment - With 3,850,000 hits, "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese" blows them all away. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Common usage in Canada is firmly Kraft Dinner, in both English and Quebecois. Google scholar pulls up no shortage of high quality hits for Kraft Dinner. Just read an good paper called From Kraft to Craft: innovation and creativity in Ontario’s Food Economy. (Interesting fact: Canadians eat almost 100 million boxes of Kraft Dinner a year, three times more per capita than Americans). If you are going to use search engine results as an argument please be sure to do so under the terms of Wikipedia:Search engine test. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Based on the simple fact that there is a clear demonstration that this is the most commonly used term. The facts that the current name was the first used and that it is still in use in several countries does not change the fact that the current name is not the most commonly used. The data from the searches above show at least two problems with the current name. For the first hit, the actual article uses the suggested reaneme and not the current name. Second, many of those hits are for variations on the name Kraft Dinner so it makes it clear that this is at best ambiguous and should not be used for the material in this article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • By "the first hit" do you mean the first result in one of the Google searches? Which search? Which page?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by variations on the name Kraft Dinner?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What was the "clear demonstration that this is the most commonly used term"?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well you can look at the "Kraft+Dinner" 4th hit which is here, or the Urban dictionary, Then if you want to believe a site like this, KD is a brand used in parts of the world. So, while this may be the common name for mac and cheese in some areas, then name is ambiguous and should be avoided when there are other choices. Then we apparently have a song that includes Kraft Dinner in the name. Or look at this usage at cooks.com. Then going back to the usage on the Kraft website that says to make a Kraft Dinner you start with Kraft Macaroni & Cheese Dinner. So even the company considers the name to cover more then the mac and cheese product. I think this establishes the ambiguous nature of the current article name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both terms are valid in different parts of the English speaking world, and it should thus fall under Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English - SimonP (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as per SimonP and Labattblueboy. This is much like the dispute over Press-up. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, KD has a cultural significance in Canada and thus is far better known and significant there than in the US where it's simply a food product. As a result the "Kraft Dinner" name has more weight and significance than "Kraft Macaroni and Cheese". Fred the happy man (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SimonP's citation of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. The raw number of English-speakers test will almost always tilt things towards American norms; this policy exists in part to prevent that. The Tom (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - The policy you're quoting refers to the use of words, e.g. colour vs color, not names. The proper policy in regards to this proposal is WP:Common name. Despite this product being sold by other names in other countries, this is an American product from an American company - thus the American version of the name should prevail as per the Manual of Style. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Names are words. You're trying to make a distinction without a difference. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
No you are, the policy does not refer to names as you will find nothing in it that refers to how something is named, only how words are spelled. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support' By far this is the most common name of the product (hell, i've never even heard it called Kraft Dinner). TJ Spyke 19:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think voting in support simply because you are not aware of a term used in another region is terribly valid.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose move The product was originally marketed as KD and still is in Canada. The article reflects its notability in Canada (the BNL song lyrics, the T&P reference) and the per-capita stat should be included also. The prominence of the product in Canada and its cultural significance suggest it should remain at the current title. And if stats.grok.se is an indicator (assuming I've run it properly) the 10,558 page views for November seal the deal. The hit counts for all the other redirects put together add up to a rounding error. Clearly our readership is searching for "Kraft Dinner". Franamax (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. From what I've read, it appears that Kraft Dinner was the original product name and is still used in some regions. Changing from one regional usage to another makes little sense and is against guidelines. --NormanEinstein (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Which guidelines?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Side comments

Lets move the comments aside, this is getting away from the discussion. As a note, contributors do not need to validate their reasons for supporting or opposing the move. If others wish to discuss the reasons, please do so here. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Contributors should explain their reasoning and the reasons should be discussed. That's how consensus-building works. See Wikipedia:Consensus for more details.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment what about "Kraft Mac and Cheese" ? If we're looking at common names... I'm pretty sure macaroni is more often abbreviated that fullout. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment If we're allowed to make side comments, what about "Krap Dinner" or "Kraft garbage that even my dog looks askance at before eating"? There are a few times when I'm not proud to be a Canadian. </rant> Also, should this edit be reverted? It's the only edit the IP ever made and I've never ever seen the cheese sauce come in a can, ever. Franamax (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the can thing can be referenced. I remember hearing about that before. But it definitely should be attested to. I suggest you add a {{citeneeded}} to it. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Insoluble. Sound arguments both ways. Flip a coin and move on. Andrewa (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In popular culture

Per Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_articles#List_content "Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference. ... If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources."

Yes, the Barenaked Ladies do have a song that, in part, mentions Kraft Dinner. However, lacking reliable sources demonstrating the significance of the reference, it doesn't belong here. I've removed it. Virtually everything else in the section I've tagged with cn and will remove shortly, assuming reliable sources pointing to genuine significance don't appear.

The Kurt Cobain bit is cited. However, the passing mention does not point to significance relative to Kraft Dinner. It might merit mention in the Cobain article, but it is trivial here. I'll remove it as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:"In popular culture" articles is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It's a viewpoint to consider, not something that must be followed.
The trivia tag is inappropriate because the section is focused on popular culture.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually it is a valid guideline, and "in popular culture" is just a way to add a specific type of trivia. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
By "it", are you referring to WP:"In popular culture" articles?
The In popular culture section is not currently a "list of miscellaneous information." The tag is not relevant.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
It is a collection of random facts that do not have anything to do with the product, just things that mention the product randomly. That is the definition of trivial facts. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Jerem43, what you may not fully grasp is just how deeply KD (and thanks for adding the abbrev) permeates Canadian culture. The Barenakedladies sang about it and If I Had a Million Dollars pretty much delivered its wish to the artists. Just 6 days ago, Stuart McLean mentioned KD on the Vinyl Cafe Christmas show. ([6] about a third of the way in, the "special Christmas dinner" just before Blue Christmas plays) I've personally had a new immigrant ask me "what is this Kraft Dinner I hear about?" and had to deliver the "cheap, easy, crap" response. I recall a full-page newspaper article about KD and its "neon orange cheese" and the comfort of familiar food (Tor. Star, need to find that). Heck, I mentioned it to my Mom and she coloured up a bit and said "well, I served that once or twice".
Normally this would just be local news and by guideline "In popular culture" aka "Trivia" sections are discouraged. However in this case, and since I don't see the same popular affinity for the term in other countries, notability falls to the Canadian experience, which is largely trivial but still pervasive. It's worthy of a global encyclopedia to demonstrate notabilty within a single country. Franamax (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any guideline that discourages "In popular culture" sections. Could you please link to the guideline where you saw that?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:Trivia, which is part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, discourages lists of random facts that do not have significant bearing on an article. An "In popular culture" is a form of trivia that is specifically dedicated passing references in media. Other major articles such as McDonald's and Burger King used to have huge sections that did the exact same thing; yet they were stripped from those articles because they didn't add anything to the article as a whole. A primary example is one of the central jokes in the movie Coming to America that relates to McDonald's, even though a good portion of the movie focuses on the McDonald's ripoff McDowell's, it isn't included because it is not pertinent to the subject which is the restaurant chain McDonald's. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus that "In popular culture" sections are discouraged by the WP:Trivia sections guideline. The guideline specifically allows focused lists of items united by a common theme, which In popular culture lists are.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Parse it however you want, per the definition in the MoS article I linked earlier, A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list, so the data you are claiming as valid and pertinent easily meets the definition of trivia. As the information is not pertinent to the article and cannot be easily incorporated into the article, it should not be included. When several experienced editors challenge the validity of a piece of information in an article, as has happened here, it is up to you to prove that the inclusion of said data should be included, not the other way around. We are following the recommended procedures defined in the essay handling trivia, so we have moved what can be incorporated into the article into the body of the article and deleted that which is not pertinent. Further, the information which is anecdotal has been challenged as being un-citable and was removed after a reasonable amount of time as such. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I realised this has been discussed, but to add my two cents, I was very surprised that there was no pop culture section. It's not just the BNL the reason they do mention it is that is was already well known as the student meal, and people joked about "living on KD." This isn't just another brand of noodles, it does have some cultural reasonance in a particular time and place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.249.99 (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You two cents, plus a reliable source for it, will give us a "In popular culture" section. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kraft_Dinner/Archive_2&oldid=1136883839"