Talk:Sugarcane mill

A point about names

see article Sugar refinery.--Shlok 15:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A sugar refinery is a factory on the basis of raw sugar, whereas a can sugar mill processes raw sugar cane to produce raw sugar. A cane sugar mill is therefore upstream of a sugar refinery. Elmschrat (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Further Processing

In the section about Further Processing, the article says "The cane juice is next mixed with lime to adjust its pH to 7." but it didn't previously explain how the juice was produced. Can someone clarify this in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.225.61.79 (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. The compelling argument below is the avoidance of ambiguity not common name. Nothing is gained by removing "cane" from the title as that is the subject of the topic. The sugar mill redirect is sufficient to get readers in the right place. Mike Cline (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Sugar cane mill → Sugar mill – Most common name by far. Google Trends shows "sugar mill" has a >20 time higher search rate than "sugar cane mill", WP:COMMONNAME. Laurdecl ^talk 07:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Laurdecl: Better discuss this move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: fair enough, thanks for copying this. Laurdecl ^talk 08:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support the move, Sugar mill sounds more natural. Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – The problem with 'sugar mill' is that 'sugar' is not what is milled. This article is clearly about cane mills, and does not, for example, include information about sugar beet mills. If one is British, one might remember the great British Sugar factories of the past. Therefore, I'm going to 'oppose' this on WP:PRECISE grounds. Either the scope of the article has to change, or a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC case has to be put forward. RGloucester — ☎
  • Where I live, there are sugar mills everywhere. Never in my life have I heard one referred to as a "sugar cane mill". This is exemplified by the 20 time greater search rate for "sugar mill". I believe WP:COMMONNAME is important here. Laurdecl ^talk 20:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If you live in Australia, which your user page seems to indicate, that would be because your source of sugar is cane. That's not the case in Europe, and in other parts of the world, where sugar beet is used. COMMONNAME does not apply, because 'sugar mill' is ambiguous. 'Sugar mill' may be found more than 'sugar cane mill' in such Google searches merely because 'sugar mill' is broader than 'sugar cane mill', including the likes of mills that mill sugar beet. This article does not deal with sugar beet, only with cane. RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing it. Most sources I find write "sugar mill" (e.g. [1]) and if the concept of a sugar mill is different to the concept of a sugar cane mill then why is sugar mill a redirect? I don't think beet accounts for the 20 time greater search rate. If sugar beet mills are are common thing, where is our article? Laurdecl ^talk 23:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't sugar from beets covered by sugar refinery, a separate article? Station1 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The refining process and the milling process are different things. Regardless, I am not claiming, at all, the sugar beet milling is more common than cane milling. All that I am saying is that the content of this article deals specifically with cane, and therefore, can't see the advantage in moving to an ambiguous title. For example, if the lead of this article were changed to say "A sugar mill can refer to a factory that processes sugar cane to produce raw or white sugar", that'd be an incorrect statement, as they also process sugar beet. Like I said, if the page move goes through, the scope of the article will have to change to include beet. RGloucester — ☎ 00:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

possibly not relevant but what is the name of the 'device' that grinds sugar crystals into icing (powder) sugar? Are they mills. Might a hat note or two be needed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The common English name for these mills in the U.S. (another major English-speaking country) is simply "cane mill" (though it could be for sorghum as well).[2] The current title best assures readers they have reached the correct article. —  AjaxSmack  02:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It isn't. Look at Google Trends – Sugar mill is Googled thirty times more than cane mill. Laurdecl ^talk 03:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Luckily, Wikipedia is not a compendium of web searches; it's an encyclopedia. Of course "sugar mill" was a more common search term because it applies to numerous toponyms and business names of no encyclopedic merit. Of the top 50 Google.com (US) hits for "sugar mill", only about 5 (i.e., 10%) referred to an actual sugar mill. —  AjaxSmack  04:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:NOT, but IMO WP:COMMONNAME is in favour of "sugar mill". Regardless of the search results, I believe the people searching aren't looking for businesses. We are building an online encyclopaedia and we want to make our articles use names with the most hits. Laurdecl ^talk 04:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

On what do you base your interpretation of Google results? My understanding is that Google results rankings reflect what people are generally looking for. If most of the hits are toponyms or businesses than it follows that's what Google users are searching for. I fail to understand how search engine results for Google, which is not an encyclopedia, should dictate a title at Wikipedia when said topic is not even the target of the vast majority of Google users. In other words, 90% of Google users who type "sugar mill" are not looking for the subject of the sugar cane mill article; why should that be the impetus for this move. —  AjaxSmack  06:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Here are the top 20 hits I get:[3]

1. Hotel
2. Restaurant
3. Estate listing
4. Estate listing
5. Wikipedia article
6. Corporation
7. Restaurant review
8. Hotel
9. Botanic garden
10. Lumber
11. Saloon
12. Race registration
13. Apartment rentals
14. Wiktionary definition
15. Toponym
16. Chiropractor
17. Veterinary cinic
18. Shopping center
19. Winery
20. RV park

What I'm trying to say is that the results aren't representative of what people are looking for. IMO the people googling "sugar mill" are looking for this article (that's how I'm here), which is lower down in the results because of the obscure and barely search title. Laurdecl ^talk 07:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Here is another source that refers to them as "sugar mills". Laurdecl ^talk 05:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.