Talk:Mug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Old comments without headings

Umm... can someone sort out the link at the end of the Image? I either get a non-working image, a ] at the start of the article, or one at the end of the image caption. Please help ;) - Estel (talk) 12:22, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)


Please can we find a mug that doesn't feature Australia or in fact any country/regional-specific elements, unless of course such regions/countries are relevant to the article. However, seen as Australia is irrelevant to mugs, it is bad editing to have the country incorporated into a country-nuetral article. Rfwoolf 01:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the mug showing images of Australia to comply with the NPOV (Neutral Point of View) policy encouraged by Wikipedia. I have replaced it with a mug featuring the Wikipedia logo. While I prefer this mug, and find it more neutral and clean and simple, we could possibly find even an even better mug with a better angle in the shot, to shows how liquids/beverages can be contained in the mug. Rfwoolf 13:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

 ??? I don't care much about the image, but please explain what point of view the other mug was espousing. I don't see how WP:NPOV applies at all. On the other hand WP:SELF might apply, but actually I think it's amusing to have WP on the mug. —johndburger 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
* Okay, guilty. I haven't wikiread every single wikipolicy on this very wikipedia. But I will say that Wikipedia is supposed to be international, and where possible and feasible, not having a bias towards or against any particular country. The measuring system for example, should be metric, even though Wikipedia is originally American and has a large American audience. I found that the mug featuring Australia (and the name of an Australian resort) on it to be liability to Wikipedia. Maybe somewhere there's a wikipolicy against featuring business names in images or content where it's not relevant to the article. Or, maybe there's a wikipolicy against branding international objects with a certain country. Mugs are seen all over the world, and I found it sacracinct to see an Australian mug on such an article. Next thing we'll see combs with the Australian flag, or a towel with the Italian flag on it, or saucers with the Brazillian logo,-- you get the point. Rfwoolf 11:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
* As far as WP:SELF applies, I do agree that it may be an issue, but so far having read the article I think it doesn't really apply -- it was referring to mostly the prose and text in the article and not so much an image within it. I do think we can find a better image out there (see my comment above), but so far I'm quite happy with this one. Rfwoolf 11:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Polite Society"

This article mentions "In polite society".
What, pray tell, is that?
If it is indeed something, perhaps we could have a link. Rfwoolf 08:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rfwoolf. It is an elitist term used by a certain section of English society to place themselves above the majority. In my opinion it has no place in the article.ThanxTheriac 14:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Hi all. Is it definite that the mug is porcelain? It looks more like a design commonly made of earthenware. I know only a minor point but perhaps changing porcelain to ceramic would be better. ThanxTheriac 14:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're right. I've taken out porcelain. Feel free to better if you can. Rfwoolf 14:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rfwoolf. Thanks, I have expanded the description as best as it possibly could be without information from whoever made the mug or photographed it. ThanxTheriac 15:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O-shaped ring

This article says: Secondly, an indented base separates the beverage from the surface upon which the mug is set. The form of the base is what produces the characteristic O-shaped stain, so often seen upon desks and documents.

Should we perhaps have an image of this?

Rfwoolf 07:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tasse and Demitasse

We need to look into this nonsense very carefully. I early removed the link of Tasse which linked to a font -- so I assume that Tasse is a foreign word (please check the English Dictionary) -- and yet Demitasse remains linked to an article (which means it wasn't vandalism).
I've never heard of either, but that's not to say they don't exist, or that parts of the world indeed don't have such cups.
If anyone can enlighten us, please do! Rfwoolf 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know a 'tasse' is a pot of tea in german? 86.52.87.137 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] coffee cup

on the disambiguation page for coffee cup, coffee cup links to mug. Then this article on the mug refers to a coffee cup as something else. Please fix this!--199.243.252.196 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes you will see on the talk page for coffee cup I made a note on February that not all coffee cups are mugs. You are correct.
The truth is that a coffee cup can refer to a "coffee cup", a "tea cup" and/or a "mug". Strictly speaking the article should focus on cups known as "coffee cups" whose main purpose are containing cups of coffee.
So I think this needs to happen: The coffee cup article needs to not be a disambiguation page and contain a stub about coffee cups and mention both mug and teacup.
I'm going to go ahead and make these changes. Feel free to contribute or chip in if you disagree.
Sidenote: I remember a few years ago if I ordered a cup of coffee they'd say "Do you want it in a cup or in a mug?" and they would charge you an extra 50c (in South Africa) for a mug.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Rfwoolf 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Beakers

I have never heard the use as mentioned in this article. If "beaker" meaning coffee cup is a regional term then it should say so. Personally, I think it should be removed entirely. Apologies for not signing my post correctly; I can't remember my user name.

[edit] Wiktionary

I'm pretty sure that this article has all the unsourced and unverifiable tags because it is a defenition rather than an encyclopedia article. Dayleyj 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Some references (bear with me - I know these may not be usable references): www.india-crafts.com/earthenware/mug.html
http://m-ware.com/faq.cfm
It's good to start some kind of collection, even if can't use 'em.
Rfwoolf 14:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The image is self-referencing and may break WP:ASR. We should use a different pic of a mug. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 19:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, and on the one hand it could possibly be breaking WP:ASR, on the other hand I feel strongly that it doesn't. WP:ASR speaks about the prose and text of articles. It would be wrong for an article to refer to Wikipedia in its text unless Wikipedia was directly relevant (such as an article ABOUT an aspect of Wikipedia). But the image is not text, and the article otherwise doesn't mention Wikipedia. Compromise suggestion: Given the doubt, I agree we should perhaps opt for an image that doesn't have the Wikipedia logo, but last time I looked I didn't find any decent image - the previous one was of an Australian company -- I was more loathed to have that included than to have a mug of Wikipedia. In addition I think it's quite pleasing to include Wikipedia in this case, after all Wikipedia does try to sell those mugs. As a compromise, if anyone can find a decent picture of a mug, that doesn't brand anything, I'd be quite happy to see a different image. Rfwoolf 10:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of WP:ASR is that we should not use wording or other content that becomes meaningless when copied verbatim to another setting or medium (such as answers.com or a print encyclopedia). I do not see how the wikipedia mug voilated that; it did not become more or less meaningful due to the incidental fact that the logo is that of the community that currently publishes the article with the image in it. However, since the matter seems to cause contention, I have now spent a few minutes with a digital camera and a plain mug from my kitchen shelves. Whether the result is "decent" I will not try to judge. Feel free to revert. –Henning Makholm 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work, and your comments about WP:ASR are very well put. However, personally, I prefer the previous image. Regardless, it's probably best to keep the one you've put, so I'm not going to revert you - although I do think we should make the image slightly bigger, if possible. I'll see if I can set that. Rfwoolf 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How much does a mug hold?

Errr... can someone give the average storage capacity of these mugs (standard cylandrical ceramic/porcelain types). Does it hold 120mL? Thanks in advance! 67.170.100.48 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"These" mugs? The article is about mugs in general, not just about a particular group of mugs.
The one in the picture can hold slightly more than 300 ml. An unscientific survey of mugs immediately available to me shows capacities ranging from 250 ml to 325 ml. I have owned smaller ones yet, which from memory I'd estimate at 175–200 ml. –Henning Makholm 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The average "cup" is 250ml (in baking if it says "add two cups of water" it means 2 x 250ml). So a mug is probably slightly larger than that, but should always be more than about 250ml. Of course, you do get different size mugs. Rfwoolf (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)