Talk:BLT cocktail/Archive 1

Promoted to GA quality status rating
This article was reviewed and successfully promoted to WP:GA quality status rating. The review is at Talk:BLT cocktail/GA1. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Other BLT cocktails: Bourbon, Lemon & Tonic, Bacardi Lemon & Tea
A Google search of "BLT cocktail" results in a significant number of results for a different drink consisting of Bourbon, Lemon & Tonic, as well as some for Bacardi Lemon & Tea. There should be a disambiguation. Dforest (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The WP:COMMONNAME term is this one. Those other ones don't have Wikipedia pages, so no disambig needed. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It has not been established that the common definition for 'BLT cocktail' is a drink containing bacon, lettuce and tomato. While a Google search of 'BLT cocktail' shows this article as the top link, the second link is to an article on bourbon, lemon and tonic. Of the top ten links, disregarding the link to this article, there are four links referring to bourbon, lemon and tonic, four links referring to bacon, lettuce and tomato, and one link referring to Bacardi Limon and tea. Webtender and Drinksmixer both define a 'BLT' as a drink made of Bacardi Limon and tea, with 20 and 23 votes respectively. Webtender does not currently show any drinks containing bacon as an ingredient. Drinksmixer shows one drink called 'Bacon, Liquor and Tomato', but there is only one vote, suggesting that it is not a common drink. The fact that the other drinks of the same name do not yet have Wikipedia pages does not mean they are less notable, nor that is no need to disambiguate them.  The lack of disambiguation perpetuates the idea that a BLT cocktail contains bacon, lettuce and tomato, which does not appear to be the common usage of the term according to non-Wikipedia reference sources. Dforest (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is WP:COMMONNAME per secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V as references. Analyzing web-hits as you do, above, is a violation of WP:NOR for main-article-body-text purposes. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a talk page, and search engine tests WP:SET do not violate WP:NOR for the purpose of discussion. One of the problems with this article is that there is no standard BLT cocktail. From reading the references, I see there are many individual cocktails loosely inspired by the sandwich. I am not disputing that 'BLT cocktail' is a common name for the various drinks inspired by the sandwich, however it also appears to the common name for other drinks, which can be confirmed by reliable sources. Thus it would be prudent to have a disambiguation. Dforest (talk)
 * You have failed to use secondary WP:RS sources in this above discussion to back up any of your points. Whereas I've done my best in this article itself to represent a good mix of secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This is also a pointless rehashing of arguments made at Articles for deletion/BLT cocktail, which resulted successfully in Keep. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I read the link, but I am not sure what you mean. What arguments are we rehashing? I am arguing for the improvement of this article, not its deletion. Why do you think it is pointless to disambiguate other drinks which have the same name?  Webtender and Drinksmixer have been cited dozens of times in Wikipedia drinks articles. I used them just for the purpose of showing that the other drinks exist. Both drinks show up in numerous other sources as well. I don't understand why you are being so defensive about this. Dforest (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Those drinks aren't notable. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree; at least Bourbon, Lemon & Tonic is notable per WP:N. There are a good number of secondary sources. There should be a disambiguation, as it is commonly called a 'BLT cocktail'. Dforest (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They don't have existing Wikipedia article pages. IFF they did, that could be discussed as a possibility. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)