Talk:Grey Goose (vodka)

astroturfing?
Even the talk page reads like a PR piece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.187.246 (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article used to be even more WP:COI than it is now, hard though that is to believe. The truth is that GG is a cynically manufactured product with no cultural history, designed to fill a market niche populated by people with more money than sense. Everything else is PR puffery. --Ef80 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

move page to Grey Goose (vodka)?
That would be the normal method of disambiguating the vodka from other uses of Grey Goose. JesseRafe 04:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. Done. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality?
This article is pretty interesting, and the history section is informative. However, the paragraph talking about "perception of quality" seems pretty controversial, and isn't supported by the Freakanomics article cited as authority. Personally, I can taste a big difference between quality vodkas and store-brand cheapies. I'd also bet you're going to have a nasty hangover if you drink much of the cheap stuff. Thoughts?

Thoughts? My thoughts are only to wonder what your personal hangovers have to do with this article. Did a bunch of Grey Goose staff come along to edit the talk page as well as the article? Joe Garrick (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

--68.0.181.173 (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Well speaking only from personal experience, I can say that drinking GG Vodka has never resulted in a Hangover when I have followed simple pre sleep procedures (a pre-sleep stomach purge, and a pint of water before sleep). All that I tend to have is a feeling of drunkeness the following morning, but a couple of Acetamenophen/Paracetamol and Ibuprofen in the morning has staved off the effects of hangover for the afternoon. All I can say is, I know when I wake up if I drank GG or something else the night before, waking up after GG is MUCH easier!--Davyboy79 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My extensive personal research (inadmissible on WP of course) says that below 14 oz per day, grey goose is basically even with filtered water in terms of hangover production. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

At least the phrase "perception of quality" is unproblematic: My interpretation is not "The price makes the drink taste better.", but "Naive buyers automatically assume that more expensive is better.". This a an extremely wide-spread trick, which is undoubtedly effective. (Wether it is also moral is another issue: The actual correlation between price and quality tends to be highly disputable.) This deception is one of the corner-stones of the luxury industry.94.220.249.208 (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Trivia is allowed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT

There are nothing about trivia exactly there. Anything that could be connected to trivia is "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics..." or "indiscriminate collection of information" subsections. Trivia presence on wikipedia is still in discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Handling_trivia

So trivia is allowed. Furthermore these are trivias maybe for you but important information for me. This is a lifestyle product that has a very heavy impact on nightclub culture that differs it from about 99% of other vodkas and I want to know it. Can you tell what is triva or not? Probably you could cut off 4/5 of Casablanca movie article because they are trivias.--148.81.137.4 (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unless and until you can show, with reliable sources, that this information is notable--as in widely covered in mainstream sources--it simply does not belong. → ROUX   ₪  22:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:GreyGoose LOrange750.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
Wheat ; isn't it hard wheat that is best for bread? (soft for cakes) Daiyounger (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grey Goose (vodka). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012035254/http://www.beveragebusiness.com/archives/article.php?cid=1&eid=62&aid=906 to http://www.beveragebusiness.com/archives/article.php?cid=1&eid=62&aid=906

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grey Goose (vodka). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060302021802/http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/bizfinance/biz/features/10816/ to http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/bizfinance/biz/features/10816/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Company History - "Champagne limestone"
Hello Wikipedians,

I noticed the Company History section references "Champagne limestone" in the second paragraph, second sentence. I've never seen this particular term used before and a quick Google search appears to indicate the phrase may only be used as a color description (for tiles, paint etc.) I believe what the original author may have meant is that the water is sourced from limestone-filtered springs, similar to the limestone soil in Champagne. But the Champagne reference doesn't seem to add value to this explanation, so I'd suggest rephrasing this sentence as follows:

"The water used to produce the vodka comes from natural, limestone-filtered springs in Cognac, France while the wheat is sourced from farms in Picardy, France."

Please let me know if anyone has thoughts on this proposed change. Thank you,

--DebateisGreat (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2023

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Rough consensus to move. This was extremely difficult to determine consensus, but taking into the weight of some arguments per WP:RMCI, I have concluded the support side seems to have edged out the opposition in achieving consensus. Most supporters cited WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:PRITOP, whereas no or very limited clear policies were cited by opposition. Some opposer's arguments appear to fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT, therefore cannot be weighted as strongly as policy based arguments. Overall, there's a majority of support !votes, and some of the oppose !votes are weaker. (non-admin closure)  –  City Urbanism   🗩

The result of the move request was: No consensus as to whether the usage of "Grey Goose" to refer to grey geese is enough to muddy the waters and make impossible a primary topic. Red  Slash  07:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

– A brief discussion above appears to have precipitated the move to the current title, with the current Grey Goose page being a dab page. WikiNav data shows that between 61-67% of outgoing page views from the dab page are to Grey Goose (vodka), with the other 33-38% going to Anser (bird) (via a redirect at Grey goose). I believe Grey Goose (vodka) is the primary topic, and the case for Grey goose (Anser (bird)) can be best handled with a hatnote. Also note the "Reader Navigation" on the WikiNav data which appears to show people coming from the Anser (bird) page just to click-thru to the Grey Goose (vodka) page. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Grey Goose (vodka) → Grey Goose
 * Grey Goose → Grey Goose (disambiguation)
 * Move to Grey Goose after moving current page to Grey Goose (disambiguation). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Added move of associated dab. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, justified primary topic per WP:DIFFCAPS. 162 etc. (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:DIFFCAPS, it is the clear primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Caps don't apply for species names which are often capitalised. It's a vodka. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is this documented? And? Apparently more people are coming from the Grey goose redirect looking for the vodka than are looking for the bird. Why are our readers less important than an article title? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're being openly hostile to readers, but please stop. From the proposal I made above, you should already know that most readers are trying to get to Grey Goose (vodka), not the bird. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose caps are used for species names regularly, also WP:DIFFCAPS is confusing—blindlynx 15:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * neat, where is this documented as overcoming what our readers click through to the most? Why are you !voting oppose when you are confused by something used to support it? Why should people searching for the vodka article have to go through the bird article first when clearly the vodka article is the desired destination? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right but sentence case is used per MOS:LIFE English vernacular ("common") names are given in lower case in article prose which goes on to direct us to Create redirects from alternative capitalization and spelling forms of article titles.  While i don't particularly like diff caps in general it is a policy and in this case per that policy i don't think capitalization is sufficient to distinguish these topics because of what MOS:LIFE says about redirects.  I should add that i don't think a 60-70:40-30 split between two topics meets either of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria—blindlynx 19:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Double the number of people looking for the bird are looking for the vodka. That's a pretty big difference, especially considering none of the other pages listed at Grey Goose even register on the WikiNav data as being something readers had to get around that dab page to reach. We can handle Anser (bird) with a hatnote and get our readers where a super majority are trying to go... I also don't see how MOS:LIFE is relevant here. This is a dab page, not an article. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * a third of readers looking for the bird means that this page does not meet WP:PT1's criteria that this page is the one that is 'highly likely' to be sought by readers—blindlynx 19:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current situation is fine. Names of animal species are very often capitalised, so this is incredibly poor disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Blindlynx, especially considering most, if not all, of the species names had their article titles capitalized until its respective guideline was changed a few years back. Steel1943  (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm genuinely sorry to the folks who just don't like the name, but I'm not seeing why we should ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because of a WP:LOCALCON and I hope the closer will consider the general weakness of arguments in opposition during the close. The data is quite clear, at a nearly 2:1 ratio, readers are trying to get to the vodka article, not the bird. None of the other articles at Grey Goose even register in the WikiNav data as being a probable target. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. While there is still some extant guidance (e.g. WP:NCFAUNACAPS) that supports the usage of fully capitalized species names, this guidance seems to be a local consensus that no longer reflects overall best practices. The lead of MOS:CAPS notes that only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia (emphasis original), and even WP:NCFAUNACAPS notes that [m]any field guides capitalise [species' common names], and most other sorts of writing do not, indicating that species capitalization does not appear to be in widespread usage. Further, MOS:BIOCAPS makes clear that sentence case should be used for species' common names; though BIOCAPS specifically discusses prose, the argument is applicable to article titles as well, per WP:LOWERCASE.For the reasons I list above, I don't feel that the bird species has a strong claim to the capitalized title "Grey Goose", and consequently the vodka should hold the primary title per WP:DIFFCAPS. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Relist to allow addition discussion of whether the vodka is primary for Grey Goose, and whether any confusion could be addressed with a hatnote that included a link both to the dab page and to Grey goose BilledMammal (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2023 (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.

Requested move 10 April 2023

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn —Locke Cole • t • c 15:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

– A brief discussion above appears to have precipitated the move to the current title, with the current Grey Goose page being a dab page. WikiNav data shows that between 61-67% of outgoing page views from the dab page are to Grey Goose (vodka), with the other 33-38% going to Anser (bird) (via a redirect at Grey goose). I believe Grey Goose (vodka) is the primary topic, and the case for Grey goose (Anser (bird)) can be best handled with a hatnote. Also note the "Reader Navigation" on the WikiNav data which appears to show people coming from the Anser (bird) page just to click-thru to the Grey Goose (vodka) page. WP:DIFFCAPS is also relevant to this discussion, and supports the rationale for moving. For this requested move, I am requesting only an administrator close the discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Grey Goose (vodka) → Grey Goose
 * Grey Goose → Grey Goose (disambiguation)
 * The above move discussion was initially closed as move, but the technical request to move was opposed, and in the span of a few hours one of the opposers above and another uninvolved editor managed to convince the initial closer to withdraw their close. The close above represents yet another close, and is the result of what I feel to be clear forum shopping. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We just had this discussion, and after a move review, "no consensus" was the outcome.  162 etc. (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So just to be clear, the closer should ignore your !vote since you're apparently no longer basing your opinion on WP:PAG but on being vindictive to me, personally? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm basing my opinion on WP:THREEOUTCOMES, which suggests to wait three months before discussing a no consensus RM once again. This is not a personal judgment of you, and I'd urge you to WP:AGF. 162 etc. (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:THREEOUTCOMES says . You ask me to AGF, then cite a page that says the opposite of what you're claiming. I guess it does say that "successful re-requests" occur after three months, but that's less a formality and more an observation... —Locke Cole • t • c 16:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest a speedy close. The previous RM just ended and further discussion is unlikely to be productive based on the arguments presented by both sides at this time. The nominator has already gone to move review, where uninvolved editors considered the nominator's objections and endorsed the no consensus closure. Now the nominator makes the exact same argument as the previous RM and the same argument as the move review. Adumbrativus (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:DIFFCAPS and pretty convincing evidence of Grey Goose the vodka being the primary topic for "Grey Goose". The nominator suggests the best constellation of titles. WP:PT2 could be considered here, but since grey goose is a subtopic of Anser (bird) and does not appear to be especially common of a term, being an intermediate grouping that is poorly explained in the article, this (sub)topic does not have substantially greater educational value than any other topic associated with the term. "Grey goose" can totally be handled with a hatnote. WP:NCFAUNACAPS does not say anything about 'Grey Goose' vs 'grey goose'. There's no "strong ambiguity" or any ambiguity whatsoever with regard to the animal name. Grey goose is not a "breed name", and doesn't have a "formal name" as a breed. The correct spelling is 'grey goose'. I suggest that the discussion continue. This is too close to being decidable to sit for months or be forgotten. I disagree with Locke Cole about alleged forum shopping, but instead of discussing process further, let's bring this to an actual close on the merits. —Alalch E. 18:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll note that I actually supported the move the first time. What I don't support is when an editor makes an RM proposal, it fails, and then goes immediately back to RM.  Speedy close, per above. 162 etc. (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The editor has strongly held procedural objections that are difficult to untangle so to be able to definitively settle the matter of process. Instead of settling process, since we're at 'no consensus' let's settle the merits of the proposal, and bypass the whole uncomfortable thing by getting to consensus because it's that close. If the result was 'moved' or 'not moved', I'd agree. —Alalch E. 18:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I also support the nominator's request for admin closure. —Alalch E. 18:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * close You realize that raising this is multiple places and a second time here hoping for a different result is forum shopping right—blindlynx 18:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that was following the process and being respectful. Apparently that made the second closer unhappy, and annoyed some people. Personally, I'm more pissed off that I waited almost a fucking month for this to be closed, just to see it turn into a shitshow in the last fucking hours. But, you know.. me following the process is "forum shopping", but opposers of the above RM swooping in to oppose the uncontroversial request by the first closer was apparently hunky dorey to you. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Self-reverts and self-strikes are a normal part of editing and personally i prefer not to challenge closures. It just seems a touch hypocritical bringing up forum shopping and posting all over the place about this move—blindlynx 01:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Close. We've already had this discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. Too soon after the last one. Steel1943  (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2023 (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.