Talk:List of IBA official cocktails

Capitalization of these drinks
Is there some guideline on Wikipedia that says that any IBA cocktail should be capitalized, even if none of the words in its name derive from a proper noun (e.g., "gin and tonic", "mint julep")? Robert K S (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2014

 * 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: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

IBA Official Cocktail → List of IBA official cocktails – or perhaps IBA official cocktails. This article is essentially a list. Moreover, I don't see a good justification (per MOS:CAPS) for capitalizing "Official" and "Cocktails". Wikipedia generally eschews excess capitalization. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support List of IBA official cocktails. Not much material beside the list indeed. No such user (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2014 (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.

Requested move 2 April 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. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

List of IBA official cocktails → List of International Bartenders Association official cocktails – Per WP:ACRONYMTITLE and WP:TITLEFORMAT:"Avoid ambiguous abbreviations", it seems indicating the full name may allay confusion 68.151.25.115 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject ...". I've always heard this organization called "IBA", not by its full name. In context it is not ambiguous, as none of the other IBAs are associated with cocktails (except, mistakenly, International Bar Association). Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – IBA might be an ambiguous abbreviation by itself, but in this context there is no lack of clarity. No other IBAs that issue lists of official cocktails have been identified. —BarrelProof (talk) 09:21, 5 April 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.

Tommy's Margarita Redirect to Margarita
In the IBA's guidlines, the recipe for Tommy's Margarita differs from that listed on the Margarita page. The info box on the Margarita page lists the following ingredients:

However the listing in IBA World specifies slightly different ingredients, and indeed Tommy's Margarita is a separate page from the main Margarita page on IBA World.
 * 3.5 cL (7 parts) tequila
 * 2 cL (4 parts) Triple Sec
 * 1.5 cL (3 parts) lime juice

Tommy's Margarita recipe:
 * 4.5 cl Tequila
 * 1.5 cl Freshly squeezed lime juice
 * 2 bar spoons of Agave nectar

It would seem that a new page specifically for Tommy's Margarita, going into more detail than the main Margarita page is in order, as it has distinctly different ingredients and history. It would seem reasonable that each IBA drink have its own page, as they do on the IBA's website. —Nanoni9 (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Simply being on the IBA list does not necessarily make a drink notable enough for its own article. But in this case I agree. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Photos
I think we've got too many photos now. They are starting to pile up on my screen. We could switch to a gallery, or remove one or more. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since no one has objected, I have removed one photo. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of IBA official cocktails. 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/20131010065653/http://iba-world.com/images/pdf/WCC_Rules_2011.pdf to http://www.iba-world.com/images/pdf/WCC_Rules_2011.pdf

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) 15:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Properties of classification.
Could the properties that the IBA uses to classify each drink into the three categories (unforgettables, contemporary classics, and new era drinks)? Obviously the title of each category is semi-self-explanatory, but a brief description would be both useful, interesting, and informative. 31173x (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree-- It has been a year! If you're up for it, this is a wiki.  Be bold, and add as you like.  If someone is watching the article and feels strongly enuf to revert, they should have responded to you by now.  Ragity (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Martini
Here I have to ask a stupid(?) question: why is one of the most popular drinks of modern times listed alphabetically under "d" for "dry martini"? There are many variations on the basic gin+vermouth recipé - isn't "dry martini" just a preferential mix, or possibly a choice of the sweetness of the mixer? I don't claim bartender expertise, I only ever served, or occasionally imbibed them, but in such a listing, I think we might dispense with "dry". Ragity (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, there are countless variations of the Martini. The reason why specifically the classic Dry Martini is listed in this article is that that's what's on the IBA 'official' list, and this article is about that list. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

updates
the list was updated very recently, and the artice lwas updated accordingly. Don't you think we should keep both of the list? One as "old" and one as "2020 list"? Corvus (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO this article should be about the list, up-to-date as it stands at any given time, rather than a historical log of all the versions of the list that may have been in the past. That said, I personally see no harm in having a section for 'notable' deletions; if, say, the Negroni were to be dropped, we could certainly note that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Merger of individual drinks into this article & wider notability criteria
An AfD discussion has taken place recently on the Spicy Fifty, closing with the instruction to merge that article into this. To me, that raises questions: Please discuss! :) Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Who decides, and on what (policy or other) grounds, which drinks on the IBA list warrant their own articles, and which are to be merged into this one? Many of these articles are currently supported by references which are borderline, with some demonstrating even less conventional WP:N notability than is the case with the Spicy Fifty (being the key 'delete' argument in that discussion). In other words, if the Spicy Fifty must be merged here on that basis, then surely many others must follow — yet none of the other drinks on the 'new era' list has even been subject to AfD, from what I could see, and there has been only one PROD (rejected, as it happens, on the basis of the drink being on the IBA official list). Moreover:
 * 2) If there is to be an AfD or similar process for each drink individually, what mechanism is there to ensure at least some consistency of outcomes?
 * 3) Or is the idea, based on this Spicy Fifty AfD outcome, that all these articles will now be merged here as a job lot?
 * 4) What of the existing information should be merged here? There are nearly a hundred drinks on the list, and keeping even just a barebones summary of each, even if laid out in a relatively compact table or similar format, would result in a) this article becoming very long, and yet b) much of the information currently existing in those articles (as well as their talk pages) being almost inevitably lost. To me, culling all that information just so we could squeeze everything into this article seems a retrograde step.
 * 5) If only some drinks are merged here while others keep their individual articles, should the information in this article be standardised across all drinks, regardless of whether or not they have their own articles? Otherwise we could end up with a situation where, say, the Negroni has only a link from this article to its own, while the Spicy Fifty has a summary (ie. actual content) here, resulting in this article providing information only about the 'less important' (meaning, less 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense of the word) drinks.
 * 6) What about cocktails etc. that are not on the IBA official list? For example, an article on the Antler (cocktail) exists for many years, with no references, and yet no PROD or AfD against it. Will all such articles be removed, if they aren't supported well enough? Or is the suggestion that only the articles describing the IBA official drinks must adhere to this strict notability requirement? In my opinion it ought to be, if anything, the other way around: inclusion on the IBA list should in and of itself automatically establish notability, while all other drinks should earn their place through the usual notability criteria.
 * I think we should refactor this list to have brief descriptions for every drink, even if the drink has a standalone article. As I stated at the AfD, the notability of these "new era" drinks seems rather borderline, and the coverage available doesn't quite seem enough to support standalone notability, but one thought I had was we could refactor this list of IBA official cocktails to include brief descriptions of each drink rather than it just being a list of links. This could theoretically be as short as a few sentences per drink, e.g.


 * Southside – made with gin, lime juice, simple syrup and mint (also known as "South Side"). Its origins are subject to speculation. It has been proposed that it gets its name from either the South Side district of the city of Chicago, Illinois, or from the Southside Sportsmen's Club on Long Island. The drink may have been the preferred beverage of Al Capone, whose gang dominated Chicago's South Side. The gin imported by Capone's rivals on the North Side of Chicago was smooth, and usually consumed with ginger ale. However, the gin consumed by Al Capone's gang had a rougher finish, and required more sweeteners to make it palatable. Thus the South Side was born.
 * Spicy Fifty – made with vodka, elderflower cordial, honey syrup, red chili pepper, and fresh lemon juice. It is designed to offer a sweet sensation at first, followed by citrusy freshness, and to finish with a slight heat of the chili. The cocktail was invented in 2005 by Salvatore Calabrese as a signature drink for his bar in the luxury casino 'Fifty' (now closed) owned by Robert Earl, located at 50 St James's Street in central London.
 * Spicy Fifty – made with vodka, elderflower cordial, honey syrup, red chili pepper, and fresh lemon juice. It is designed to offer a sweet sensation at first, followed by citrusy freshness, and to finish with a slight heat of the chili. The cocktail was invented in 2005 by Salvatore Calabrese as a signature drink for his bar in the luxury casino 'Fifty' (now closed) owned by Robert Earl, located at 50 St James's Street in central London.


 * I pulled these sample descriptions form the South Side (cocktail) and Spicy Fifty articles, respectively. Note that refactoring this list to include descriptions does not mandate that we must also merge all the drinks we do include a description for into this article. However, doing so might make it easier for editors to WP:BOLDly redirect those borderline notable drinks (thereby skipping AfD). Mz7 (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have WP:BOLDly completed the merge along the lines of what I and I believe the AfD was thinking. I formatted it based on MOS:DLIST. Mz7 (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Thanks for picking this up. You've clearly done a lot of work bringing across all that content from the individual articles! However, I still have reservations about the proposed merger approach per the Spicy Fifty AfD outcome (or perhaps I should say alleged outcome). At the moment the Spicy Fifty is the only one of the nearly a hundred IBA official drinks to have been treated this way; all the others have their own, dedicated articles. If that remains so, one has to wonder what was so 'wrong' about the Spicy Fifty article (which actually now has more content and better references than many of the others!) that it, and only it, had to go? Or if this same treatment is to be rolled out more widely, let's say at least to the entire 'New era' category (which, I agree with you, is considerably less notable than the other two, and presumably also more prone to change), then don't we risk losing a lot of useful information currently contained in all those individual articles and their talk pages? Or am I exaggerating either the quantity or quality of that information? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think you raise thoughtful questions. In my view, the other cocktails, particularly in the "new era" category, should be reevaluated on a case-by-case basis. By this I mean I don't think we necessarily have to merge the entire "new era" category here; there could very well be notable cocktails in that category. However, there are a variety of stubs that do not seem at first glance to be more notable than the Spicy Fifty. There are serveral one-sentence stubs that don't impart more information beyond the infobox, e.g. Barracuda (cocktail), New York Sour, Trinidad Sour. The infoboxes of these article primarily contain information about how to prepare the drinks, which isn't exactly necessary for an encyclopedia per WP:NOTCOOKBOOK, but nevertheless can be merged here at editorial discretion if needed (e.g. in some of the descriptions I merged a few nights ago, I mentioned that the recipe calls for "equal parts X, Y, Z, in a so-and-so glass"). Now that the page is a little longer, we should also be a bit more liberal about adding images to the page—it would be nice to provide more illustration. As far as the question of "what harm do these cause?" or "what's so 'wrong' about these articles?", I think the answer is in the proliferation of trivial topics. The community has long rejected this kind of argument which says we should keep articles where there is insufficient information in reliable sources to expand the article beyond a stub, but do not necessarily cause "harm" and are "useful" to readers who have a niche interest in these topics. Admittedly, however, this sort of debate over these borderline topics is one of Wikipedia's most fundamental and longstanding and likely extends beyond this one cocktail. Mz7 (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I wasn't so much asking what is the 'harm' in having one or all of these articles, but rather why was the Spicy Fifty singled out, and more to the point, what should now be done about the category more generally? You suggest dealing with these articles on case by case basis, but unless that's done in some sort of coordinated manner, we could end up going through a lot of AfDs and PRODs, with some going one way, some the other. Now, I know there's no inherent requirement for consistent treatment of comparable articles (however much I would like there to be!), so perhaps it's okay if one article gets removed while another one remains, but all the same, I do think this could get messy if the category isn't handled as a whole. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: I've only just seen the Spicy Fifty deletion review taking place, so will wait for that to conclude before commenting further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Now that the deletion review has closed, we can continue with this. I was thinking that maybe the contents could be laid out as a table (no need to be sortable, at least not by every column) — something along these lines:

Would that work? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)