Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Beverages Task Force/restructure

The new discussion is farther down the page.

Prior discussion
This information was copied verbatim from Talk:List of cocktails, which is where the discussion started. Please add new comments to a new section below. Thanks.

I am going to start working on a more thorough categorization and listing of cocktails. Comments on the following:


 * I would like to see this page become an alphabetical list of all of the cocktails in the database, without cagegorization or description.


 * Links on this page to individual pages which categorize drinks, such as "Cocktails with Rum", "Cocktails with Amaretto", "Fizzes", "Flips", "Sours" (note that these individual pages would have overlap, since a drink can both contain rum and be a fizz)


 * A new page with something like "Historical Cocktail Styles" (please, suggest a better title) with sections on "Cobblers", "Sangrees", etc. These are of historical importance, but there is not much to say other than what their defining features are and the standard variations.

Philvarner 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to standardize language when referring to groups of cocktails, e.g., sours, fizzes, etc. Different articles use different works, which can be confusing.  Possible options are:
 * Class
 * Style
 * Category
 * Type

I think this needs to be planned very carefully before we go about implementing it. Manual lists are difficult to maintain, and categories will help to reduce some of that workload.

A totally-alphabetical list is actually not very helpful. If you don't believe me, take a look at the long, sprawling list of cocktails on the Glossary of Cocktails at the WikiBooks Bartending Guide. It's actually much easier to find things here than there if you have a clue as to the primary alcohol type. That, of course, is the problem with this type of list. If you know you are looking for a jellybean cocktail, but you don't know it is made with Anisette, and if you don't know that Annisette is currently classified under cocktails with lesser known spirits, then you might have a hard time finding it.

Another thing to consider is that there are a lot of redirect pages that currently link into various places within the list. For example, by removing the beer-related lists, you probably broke about 10-15 redirects that now no longer point to the correct location. This list is almost like a portal to the entire mixed drinks area, and even little changes have big impacts to a lot of articles.

Since this is actually a much bigger task than just changing this list, let's move the discussion over to a new section at Mixed Drinks WikiProject just to discuss and plan this.

You do not have to be an active participant of the WikiProject to join in on the discussion. Everyone is welcome. However, you are also welcome to participate in the project if you like. --  Will  scrlt ( Talk ) 11:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking of categorization recently, and I'd like comments on the following:


 * For cocktails that involve beer, wine, or other non-distilled alcohol, I do not think we should distinguish between "Beer cocktails" and "Cocktails with beer" and the same for wine. For beer, there are no "true cocktails" which contain beer as a minority ingredient.  Some were miscategorized per these guidelines, which I moved to the Beer cocktal page.  As for wine cocktails, I don't think it matters which is the greater ingredient.  For instance, a Bellini and Mimosa are sparking wine and fruit.  A [French 75] is more similar to a gin fizz, but with champagne instead of carbonated water.  I think it's a confusing distinction to put one in one category and another in a different category (wine vs. gin), since the typical user looking it up has no idea what is in either (which is why they're looking it up).   Therefore, I would like to have one category for each "Beer cocktail" and "Wine cocktail" and not distinguish.  Cocktails that are in either in of these categories which are associated with a spirit (eg., French 75) will also appear on the List of Cocktails.   Also, if we continue to have two places for beer and wine cocktails, people will contiually try to add cocktails that are on one list to the other without checking.


 * Two popular drinks which are missing are Spanish Coffee and Irish Coffee. There is an Irish Coffee page, but it is mostly a recipe.   I'm going to add a new page "Coffee cocktails" and put Irish Coffee, Spanish Coffee, and all of the other common "National" coffees here, since they're all the same.


 * There are quite a few cocktails that have more information about them than can easily go in the List of Cocktails, but not enough to warrant a whole page.  I'm going to add new pages called "Other traditional cocktails", "Other classic cocktails", "Other modern cocktails", and "Other contemporary cocktails".   The distinction is :


 * Other traditional cocktails: styles (e.g., Smash, Flip) and specific cocktails (e.g., Mint Julep, which has it's own page) which have documentation before 1887 or appear in Jerry Thomas' Bartenders Guide 1887 edition. This is a bit arbitrary, but the information from that era is sparse and the Thomas book is the main documentaion.  Darcy O'Neill at The Art of Drink has scanned the book and has it available online.


 * Other classic cocktails: 1887 - 1934 (End of Prohibition in the US) Cocktail creation went flat with Prohibition, and there's only one notable cocktail created during it, in Paris, whose name by brain will not reveal right now.


 * Other modern cocktails - 1934 (Post-Prohibition) to 1990.  Cosmopolitan, I can't think of any others right now.


 * Other contemporary cocktails - Anything more recent, including novelty/trendy cocktails like the Incredible Hulk.


 * One result of the separation into the categories is it will limit newly-created cocktails to being put in the "contemporary" section, so there are less changes to everywhere else. This will also have the effect of separating "historical" cocktails, like the Martini, Manhattan, Margarita, from "popular" cocktails, like Crunk Juice, which I think is good for encyclopedic reasons.


 * Consistent formatting for List of Cocktails page. I think the List of Cocktails page should be standardized such that (1) it is alphabetical, (2) all entries have a description listing ingredients which can be in the drink, (3) any information other than the ingredients will go into the appropriate "Other" page if there is not enough for an individual page.  If users are looking for cocktails by spirit, then they can use the "Category:" pages.  This solves some of the problem with putting each cocktail into a bucket on the page, like, what if a cocktail has both rum and vodka, which bucket should it go into? This way it doesn't matter, since it is in one place of the List and then in each of the Category: pages.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philvarner (talk • contribs)

My thoughts on categorization
First, I would like to applaud Phil for creatively thinking outside the box on how to organize these pages in a different way. When I started doing the work I did, I essentially tried to make things fit into the existing status quo, and that was an important start, because so many things were outside of any status or quo. :-)

Before discussing any of Phil's points, let me describe my vision of how I would like to see this portion of Wikipedia develop in coordination with the Wikibooks Bartending Guide.

Ultimately (or perhaps sooner, I'm not sure anymore) my goal was to develop a complete portal for all things related to mixed drinks and bartending. Portals serve as "super categories" or expansive collections of related articles. There is already a Beer Portal, and mixed drinks currently are part of the Food Portal (surprisingly, no a Wine Portal has been created yet).

Additionally, I would like to see the categories used much more effectively than they are right now. I would like to see a select grouping of lists created, but really work on focusing on the categories for people to find articles instead of labor-intensive lists.

I would like to see more "family" articles where entire families or classifications of drinks are discussed. Such articles would begin with the origins of the drink, how they were named, key individuals involved in the development of that grouping of drinks, and then provide a few traditional drink examples. If the drinks were pre-prohibition, then discuss how prohibition changed or altered the drinks, and offer a few more examples. Then discuss how the drinks once again changed (or dropped out of popularity) in moder times, and again offer current popular examples. Finally, discuss how the drinks have entered and affected pop-culture, both historically and in modern times. These are exactly the types of articles that should be in place at Wikipedia. These are encyclopedia articles.

I would like to see feature-length articles (Bloody Mary, Cosmopolitan, Margarita, Martini come to mind quickly) treated in a similar, but more specific manner to the family articles. Yes, there would likely be some overlap, but that is perfectly fine. A reader shouldn't have to read both articles to have a general understanding of a Margarita and a Sour. However, Margarita should include a further reference to the Sour article to indicate that further information is available if the reader wishes to go more in-depth.

What to do with smaller articles? I would like to see them moved into separate pages in the WikiBooks Bartending Guide. Right now it is largely a dumping ground for recipe-only stub-class articles from Wikipedia. That's not what WikiBooks is for. WikiBooks is supposed to be a full-fledged text book grade book. Wikipedia is not a book of recipes. I think we have been doing a pretty good job of expanding or merging various recipes here, and are working to improve things, but I think the best thing to do with the smaller articles is develop them into a standardized format and trans-wiki them into stand-alone pages within the Bartending Guide.

Phil's idea of classifying the drinks by era makes a lot of sense in a more sequential book. Wikipedia is a series of hyperlinks. Any attempts at classifying drinks in such a manner are difficult to implement, and somewhat counter-intuitive. At WikiBooks, however, it makes perfect sense, and I'm all for it.

Additionally, as part of the portal, I would like to see the focus include the bartending aspects of this genre. There have been some fantastically creative people throughout history who developed interesting and tasty drinks. Very few of them have anything approaching a decent biography here at Wikipedia. Several bars and other drinking establishments are likewise notable, and should be profiled, too. There should be articles that discuss all of this, and WikiBooks should include information for people wanting to learn how to become a bartender (or barback, cocktail waitress, etc.), how to stock a bar, or other topics more related to how-to types of information. All of this various information would be collected and organized through the Portal.

Specifically concerning categorization (and I am speaking of type of categorization, not how to categorize drinks within articles, because that's really a different topic), here are my thoughts:

There should be categories for every major type of alcohol. I have already started drafting a list of such categories, and creating a hierarchy of how to "nest" categories within other categories (Amaretto drinks, under Amaro drinks, under Nut-flavored liqueurs, under liqueurs; Absinthe drinks, under Anise-flavored liqueurs, under liqueurs; Spiced rum drinks, under rum drinks, under sugar cane and molasses liquors). The names are finalized yet, but that's the basic idea.

If there was an article concerning a drink containing Amaretto, Absinthe, and Spiced Rum (what a combination, eh?), the drink would be listed in all three of those categories, which would make it easy for someone to find it if they were looking by ingredient.

Likewise, we can create categories for different classifications of drinks (fizzes, juleps, collins, sours, etc.), and drinks could be cross-referenced under whichever one(s) are appropriate. With categories, it is no problem to have articles appear in multiple categories, because they take up no extra space. It's all handled dynamically by the WikiMedia database.

We can create additional categories for national drinks, eras when the cocktails were invented, and so on. We don't want to go crazy and create too many (most categories should contain between 20 and 200 items to justify creating a separate category). But, categories do give us a very useful level of organization that static pages do not (like the List of cocktails).

Based on parallel, yet separate, discussions both here at Wikipedia and at WikiBooks, I think that the distinction between beer cocktails, wine cocktails, and true cocktails should remain. Apparently to mixologists (though perhaps not to the average bartenders, and certainly not to most home enthusiasts) the distinction is an important on. I do know that a few of the cocktails with beer that were moved to the beer cocktails page are not beer cocktails (i.e., they were 50% or greater distilled spirits). I know, because I was the one who sorted through the original sprawling mess to sort it all out (I think there were three true cocktails with beer, but I could be wrong on the number). I did leave the (apparently) most popular beer mixes on the page with clear indication that they were not cocktails, and pointed people to the appropriate page. This was only because people kept adding them back in when they didn't find them.

We have to remember that the average visitor to Wikipedia doesn't understand or care how we organize things here. They just want to quickly find the drink they want to serve in the next five minutes or next Friday night. They could care less if it's a beer cocktail, a fizz, or whatever.

In that respect, Phil is also partly right. An alphabetical list of cocktails would help someone like that trying to find a specific drink by name. However, many people look for drinks by the primary alcohol(s) they have on-hand. If they have a lot of gin sitting around, they aren't interested in Whiskey Sours. They want to know what to do with that gin.

The current List of cocktails does meet both needs pretty well (at least so we have heard in unsolicited feedback wanting to recommend the page as a featured list, which is about the highest honor a page can receive). So, I think the list is doing a fairly good job as-is. It is an alphabetical list, but it's not an unread ably long alphabetical list. If you are looking for a Godfather cocktail, you only have about 6 sections to skim through, and you look at the "G"s in each section, and you find it pretty quickly. In an alphabetical-only list, you wouldn't find Godfather when looking for something with Amaretto, because to keep the list size down to a manageable size (preferably 32K), we do not include the actual ingredients of any articles to which we have active links.

In theory, I like the idea of creating new lists of "Other traditional cocktails", "Other classic cocktails", "Other modern cocktails", and "Other contemporary cocktails". In practice, I think it needs more thought and development.

First, define "Other". Other is a presumption that there is something else more important, and these are the leftover "others". If that's true, is the topic even notable enough to warrant discussion within Wikipedia? It might be successfully argued in an AFD that the answer is no, and in fact the entire article of "others" is not worth keeping.

There is also a question in my mind as to "traditional" and "classic". I know you gave examples, but it would seem that the actual year range would make a better designation. If the terms you use are as well recognized as, say the difference between Baroque, Classical, and Romantic music, and, generally speaking, most bartenders and nearly all mixologists would understand the terms, then maybe they would make sense. However, my gut feeling is that the "average Joe" Wikipedia reader is not going to understand a list laid out in that fashion. Instead, I would suggest using that as a way of organizing the information within WikiBooks. It would be a good way, there, to help the future mixologists and bartenders to understand the history and influences of drinks over the years. Chronological order, and breaking things into different eras are a very popular and useful way of writing text books. Paper encyclopedias, too, but not really so go for online ones filled with hyperlinks, in my opinion.

Phil also mentioned standardizing the List of cocktails formatting. It actually was standardized at one point (that was actually the first thing I worked on). Unfortunately, manual lists require constant maintenance to stay standardized. I have met some Wikipedians whose only activity on Wikipedia is patrolling certain large lists and fixing the problems that appear every day. These wonderful Wikignomes are what it takes to keep such lists from quickly getting polluted with bad formatting, inconsistent information, and unalphabetized entries.

One thing that might help would be to create a standard, simple template that could be used to standardize the appearance of each entry. The only problem is that it raises the bar for being able to edit the list by newbies. Also, Wikignomes still have to patrol the list to see that the template is applied consistently and correctly.

Another thing is that we have to decide exactly what a good list entry should look like. And I don't think this should be something decided only here at Wikipedia. The WikiBooks Bartending Guide has a huge glossary of cocktails (again, mostly cruft that was dumped there from bad Wikipedia articles). It is in FAR worse condition, with additional information. However, it should receive a similar standarization of formatting and layout. I think both Projects would benefit from working together to come up with a standard way to list drinks within a list. This would also greatly improve the ability to trans-wiki merge information between Projects.

In short, there is nothing short about what we are discussing. Seriously, I think there needs to be several months of planning between both Wikipedia editors and WikiBooks editors before we perform any large-scale changes.

I think that new articles such as Phil is discussing should be developed inside the Work Area, because developing it in main article space is likely to result in confusion by other editors and probably nominations for deletion while we are attempting to develop something new and useful.

New templates should be proposed, planned, and built in Project space, and then tested in the articles in the Work Area, too, before they see the light of day in main space.

We are all working in a very solitary mode still. That was the way I started out working on this WikiProject, because at the time I was the only person actively editing. There are now three of us who are VERY active, two or three more who are moderately active, and several others who are likely to be with a little encouragement. I was contacted by an earlier person who also is likely to become involved again. And that's just here at Wikipedia. There are a number of very good editors over a WikiBooks who should be involved in this discussion, too. The days of implementing bold changes to articles are over. The Project has grown and expanded to a point where collaboration and cooperation are increasingly important.

If anyone should be unhappy with that change, it should be me. After all, I was the Lone Ranger used to doing things without having to ask "Mother May I?" to anyone. But I am actually thrilled with this change. It is much more in line with the goals of Wikipedia, and it makes things like a true Portal seem possible, when two months ago it seemed nearly impossible. That excites and inspires me.

--  Will  scrlt ( Talk ) 10:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are also issues that need to be considered with other sister WikiProjects besides WikiBooks. Commons contains media related to these projects, and the information is organized largely based on the current structure of the articles here at Wikipedia (largely because I did most of the uploading and followed what was already in place here). Future updates here should be mirrored there.


 * The other language Wikipedias have related articles (List of cocktails is available in Español, Français, Nederlands, 日本語, Slovenščina, Српски / Srpski, and 中文). Major changes to the articles at the English Wikipedia could impact the linking at those and other wikis. While this isn't a primary concern of mine, it is something of which to be mindful as we change the focus and emphasis of popular articles.


 * --  Will  scrlt ( Talk ) 23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that there should be an alphabetical list of all cocktails for sure. I dislike trying to find cocktails by wondering what liqours are in them. If someone were to ask you at a bar for a "white russian" you should not have to ask "is that a vodka or rum drink" - This might already exist but i have not found it. I would also suggest that the front page should be a way to browse cocktails based on different. This would probably take way too long, however - is there a way to set this up to automatically catagorize things? i dunno much about wiki - im still learning - thuglastalk 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Automatic alphabetical lists of things are exactly what categories are. In fact (and this is the limitation with categories and why manual lists are still useful) they can only give you alphabetized lists. In order to create a list of rum-based drinks, you have to create a separate category and then add the drinks to the category.
 * At the moment, both the manual list and the categories are broken down by liquor type. It sounds like one large alphabetical category containing all the drinks would be helpful. That will be easy to implement. We just add that master category to every article with an infobox, and the infobox can add the category automatically.
 * Please describe more what you would like to see on a front page. --  Will  scrlt ( Talk ) 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)--  Will  scrlt  ( Talk ) 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow i had a hard time understanding that. I dont really do the formatting part of wikipedia. I took a look at catagory - cocktails and that is precisely what i was imagining, i had been looking at 'mixed drinks'. Is a beer a cocktail? I searched for 'alchoholic drinks' and i found nothing. Basically disregard my previous message. The biggest problem i see with the mixed drinks thing over all is that it is VERY hard to find. I doubt many people even know where the main page is or how to get to it. I have no clue how to fix this problem or if it can be fixed. Wikipedia is great at some things, terrible at others (such as navigation).


 * Will said: "They just want to quickly find the drink they want to serve in the next five minutes or next Friday night. " I don't think this is what wikipedia should be for. If I'm trying to think of something for dinner, I go to a cookbook, not an encyclopedia. I think of the use case more like: (1) watching the Gilmore Girls, Emily mentions a Sidecar (cocktail), (2) me thinks, what's that?, and looks it up in wikipedia  (3)  wikipedia has an entry with the basic ingredients and the history of the drink (I think Will's  vision above of what each entry should have is spot-on), with links to wikibooks and other places for exact recipes.


 * "An alphabetical list of cocktails would help someone like that trying to find a specific drink by name. However, many people look for drinks by the primary alcohol(s) they have on-hand. If : they have a lot of gin sitting around, they aren't interested in Whiskey Sours. They want to know what to do with that gin."


 * I think there are other websites that do this better than wikipedia, and I think it's out of scope.


 * Will wrote: "In theory, I like the idea of creating new lists of "Other traditional cocktails", "Other classic cocktails", "Other modern cocktails", and "Other contemporary cocktails". In practice, I think it needs more thought and development."


 * This was a bad idea. Having gone thought all of the cocktails now and having found Ted Regan's categorization system in "The Joy of Mixology", I think there are other categories that can better serve this.


 * One thing that will make things more manageable in the short run is some merging. I think pages on "Highballs" (e.g., Jack and Coke, 7 & 7), "Coffee cocktails" (various national coffees), and "Duos and Trios" (e.g., B&B, Brandy Alexander) will scoop up a bunch of the stubs that don't have any expansion potential.


 * And finally, I think the List of cocktails should be an alphabetical list with only the ingredients with no instructions or proportions. If users want to find drink by base spirit, the categories are good for that.  If the drink is notable enough to have more than just the ingredients listed, then it should be on another page somewhere else.


 * Philvarner 08:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

comment by thuglas
(moved from archived section, I believe this is refering to my comment that it's not where you go for Friday night drinks)

I am aware wikipedia is not for convienience of making drinks. However wikipedia is for acessible information for anyone. This includes someone making a drink thuglastalk 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My point what that, if there is a conflict between making the content encyclopedic and making it convenient for finding a drink to make, we should err on the side of encyclopedic. If people just "want to find a drink to make", they should either use another website or the Wikibook - not the encyclopedia. Philvarner 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

makes sense thuglastalk 13:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, no rash decisions or major changes
Hi. I'm on a bit of an unexpected wikibreak right now. I was practically computerless for the past week. I will be out of town for the next few days, and then I have to catch-up on all the backlog of work that I'm falling farther behind in the real world. I am still very much interested in this topic, and I have several comments to add, but I am leaving town in a few hours and still have to pack, so I can't comment now. I should be able to resume Wikiing again around the 25th. I might be able to squeeze in some dial-up connection time (ugh) while I am away, but that's to be determined.

I will say that the Friday night purposes and the Gilmore Girls inspired research are both equally valid uses of an encyclopedia. As long as we make it VERY easy for the Friday nighter's to locate exact recipes (i.e., direct links to such on WikiBooks and other generally accepted sites), then in many articles an exact recipe is not necessary. However, if we can't agree on a way to link to such information, then the information should appear in the articles. I also think that to achieve Good Article or Featured Article status (or even an "A" classification), leaving out that information will not cut it. In other words, as the quality and length of the article increases, it becomes more important to include the recipe, or more than one (original, traditional, contemporary, etc.), but to do so in a way that really flows like an encyclopedia article -- not like a cookbook with recipe after recipe scattered around.

--  Will  scrlt ( Talk ) 07:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Bwah-ha-ha... my evil plan can now be hatched... But seriously, I've made a couple of new pages the merge content into: Highball (cocktail), Duo and trio cocktails, and Vermouth cocktail, (to get rid of the "Other classic cocktail" page) and I'm going to concentrate on cleaning up existing pages now. Philvarner 07:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Woah!!
That's a lot of information to take in all at once!! I think we need to break this down into more manageable chunks. As far as I can see, there are four areas of discussion. Can we try and break this discussion down into its constituent parts? (Happy-melon 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Development of a portal
I'd love to see a portal, but I think it's a while down the road. At the moment I don't feel in a position to think about the contents or format of that, but I guess we'd want to include cocktails, beer and wine mixes, drinkware etc, as well as sections on the as-yet entirely theoretical cocktail personalities and famous cocktail-related places. Happy-melon 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Style of articles and final destination of short articles
Deciding and then enacting major changes to article style is not really my cup of tea, so I won't be able to contribute much to this area. For now the policy of gutting short articles and making them redirects to the LoC is working fine. Phase one would seem to be the completion of this program. Phase two, of course, is the much more difficult task of converting all those redirects back into fully-fledged articles! This is the much harder, much longer task. Happy-melon 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Relationship with WikiBooks
It seems to me that WikiBooks should eventually hold a substantial recipe book, of which each drink should form only one chapter. The 'textbook' we'd be trying to create there is a recipe book enabling a bartender to easily look up how to mix an obscure drink a customer has just asked for. The contents of the Infobox should comprise the majority of the information in the WikiBooks articles. History, popularity, culture etc all belongs in the Wikipedia articles (although of course the respective articles on each project should be cross-referenced). Although WikiBooks has been a dumping ground for cocktail stubs, these often contain no more information than a basic recipe or ingredient list, which is a good foundation for a wikibooks article. I'll be focusing mainly on the wikipedia articles, but co-ordination and minimisation of duplication between projects will also be a goal. Happy-melon 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of categories
Categories are extremely useful to suplement, and in some cases replace, the LoC. For instance, at the head of each section of the LoC could (should?) be a link to "Category: Cocktails with XX", for a comprehensive, alphabetical list of cocktails which might be more up to date than the LoC. For that reason, I think that the LoC needs to be more than just a list of cocktails - I'd like to see a very brief description for all the cocktails there, plus pictures etc. Happy-melon 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Involvement of other Projects in a nutshell
There is a lot of text on this page. What, in a nutshell, would be the planned involvement with or impact on other drinks projects - like Beer for example? SilkTork 16:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "lot of text" was not intended in a negative way. It's great that there is such enthusiasm and planning. I just meant it was a lot for a person to read through! SilkTork 17:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt we'll want to touch them much, since the "beer people" have set things up. I definitely don't see any suggestions on structural changes, and only updating beer content when it contradicts cocktail content.  The overlap is obviously in beer cocktails, but I think of this a "beer as an ingredient in another product" rather than "information about beer".  For example, if  a page on Stout says that it's an ingredient in a Garbeldysnort cocktail, and it isn't, then that page would probably be updated, but that's it.   Philvarner 19:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)