Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spirits/Archive 2

Dubonnet
Hi there, I'm trying to sort out an entry I came across by chance on the Dubonnet page. I'm no expert on spirits, but having worked in a bar many years ago, I thought the comparion between Dubonnet and Buckfast Tonic Wine in the lead was nothing more than minor vandalism someone had placed on the page that had gone unnoticed. However it seems to be a statement defended very vigorously by a small group of anonymous IP addresses. Does anyone have any views? Mighty Antar (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Torsten Carleman
There has been ongoing contention about whether Torsten Carleman's death from alcoholism should be discussed.

The viewpoints of editors experienced with biographies discussing causes of death would be helpful.

Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Scottish malt whisky
This is a crosspost from Wikiproject Food & Drink which seems to be rather dead, and, against better judgement, I hope I get more response here: the articles about Scottish malt whisky and related subjects are in pretty bad shape. I've begun creating some new articles on distilleries here and there, but I wouldn't mind a more organised effort. Would this Wikiproject be the right place? If not, could you direct me somewhere that is? If it is, would anyone be interested in starting up a taskforce? I'm looking to work on Scottish malt whisky distilleries in particular, but other issues and subjects around the production process and the malt whiksy 'scene' by lack of a better word (i.e. Keepers of the Quaich, Customs and Excise Act 1823, etc). There is a lot of content creation to be done, but also some streamlining work around article names, possibly some moves here and there, and probably some backlinking too. I never started a taskforce before, so any help would be welcome. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Clipper Cocktail
A new page should be written for the Clipper Cocktail. http://www.flyingclippers.com/B314interior.html http://www.flyingclippers.com/drink.html 174.22.21.198 (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If other members of the WikiSpiritsProject agree, I'd be happy to undertake writing this up, adding a picture etc.--Ethanbentley (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Black & white Scotch whiskey a pint hidden inside a fake book
I have just come across a fake book with what appears to be unopend I would guess about a pint size bottle of Black & white Scotch Whiskey & two shot glasses they appear to be crystal with a gold rim.The bottle was hidden in a book marked ADVERTISING PROBLEMS SIMPLIFIED A Gordon Publication The bottle is about 8' tall 4" wide. It has a tax seal & a state of Florida stamp . It is marked "product of Scotland BLACK & WHITE BUCHANANS BLENDED SCOTCH WHISKY  4/5 Pint 100% scotch whiskies 86.8 proof Sole distributor for U.S.A. THE FLEISCHMAN DISTILLING CORPORATIONS  This book has been in my house since at least 1975 never knew it was anything but a book. It appears to be be in good condition other than the cover flap has become unhinged. Does anyone know if this is a collectable and if so some idea what it is worth ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.218.55 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Poteen
The article on Poteen needs some tidying up there seems to still be some outstanding issues. Legality in Northern Ireland for example. --Ethanbentley (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)--Ethanbentley (talk)

Active members and the state of the project
Hey folks, I've placed a message on the talk page of those who have contributed to WikiProject Spirits or have put their name in the list of contributors directing you here.

Can I ask you all to do at least one thing, please comment here letting us know if you're still active on Wikipedia and keen on staying involved with WikiProject spirits.

Further, I'd like to promote some sort of group focus and drive to work on improving the articles that fall under the scope of this project. I'd like to suggest a sort of 'focus of the month' type event where we attempt to improve one article as a group. Should we do a great job in less than a month perhaps we can move to bi-weekly but I think, for our active member level, that may be ambitious.

The initial focus of the month: American whiskey - Currently a start-class article as of 11/12/2012

Thoughts? Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 13:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm still active, though my skills at editing Wikipedia are unfortunately rather basic (i.e., warning: might need some guidance). I'm happy to do what I can!  American Whiskey is an excellent choice for a focus, Cabe6403! Francophile124 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about that, if you have any questions, post them here or on my talk page directly and I'll be happy to help. We all started somewhere, I'm not the most experienced either! Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 17:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be willing to do some copy-editing, but I don't write new articles. Wahrmund (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, I would postulate that we should focus on copyediting our existing articles before we think about creating new ones anyway. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 17:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Im semiactive atm... i can do some editing but i dont have the time to write new articles --V0nNemizez (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Every little helps, as I mentioned above, I think a focus on copyediting and improving our existing articles is worth more than adding more stubs. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 17:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, with those that have indicated their active/semi active I would suggest we attempt to bring American whiskey up to, or exceding the level of Scotch whisky. I selected American whiskey as it's listed as one of our high-importance articles. What it needs is a good copy-edit and sourcing. Lets set this goal and get it done before Christmas. Drams for all :) Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 16:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Still active - what is the status of american Whisky now? --Ethanbentley (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Distillery naming conventions
I've noticed there doesn't seem to be any consistancy to the naming of articles about Scottish Whisky distilleries. Some are named like Bowmore, others Bowmore distillery, Bowmore Distillery and Bowmore Single Malt. Replace Bowmore with other distilleries obviously.

I've began moving them to all have the format for Bowmore distillery. Any thoughts? Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 16:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is now a discussion regarding this at Talk:Tomatin distillery Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 13:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this would be a good place for the discussion, especially in case anyone else questions it, at any other distillery pages.
 * I think the best name for the pages would be the official names of the subjects of the articles. That could be either the distillery name or the whisky brand. The distillery name would be better than the whisky name, since the distillery is a company and a place. So in the case of the Bowmore distillery, what do you call the article? That would have to be its official name. To be honest, I'm not sure what that is. I don't know if it's called Bowmore Distillery, or simply Bowmore. Note that the word "Distillery" is either capitalized or absent. If it was simply Bowmore, we would need to disambiguate it, since that's the name of a town, so we'd call the article Bowmore (distillery).
 * To be honest, I'm not 100% certain whether the name of the distillery is Bowmore Distillery, or simply Bowmore. It's not a company itself, being owned by Morrison Bowmore Distillers Ltd. so maybe it doesn't have an official name? For that reason, I'd lean towards naming the article (and others like it) Bowmore (distillery). Also, that would facilitate covering both the distillery and the brand in the article.
 * It's good to see someone taking an interest in the Scotch whisky distilleries, and I'd be happy to help further. -Freekee (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is one of these discussions that's made more difficult by text rather than speach as it depends on the emphasis. As far as I'm aware, Bowmore is the whisky itself and the name of the branding but the distilleries tend not to have actual names per say. Bowmore distillery is simply the distillery where Bowmore is distilled. Were its name to be "Bowmore Distillery" I would agree. I liken it to having a whisky called Cabemore, at first it is distilled at Cabemore distillery (the distillery had no specific name) but we named it so now we distil it at a distillery we call The West Distillery. Does that make sense?
 * Additionally, I went by what locals tend to refer to the distilleries by, Auchentoshan is my local distillery amd people usually differentiate between Auchentoshan the whisky and Auchentoshan distillery when talking about them. I'm not opposed to something like Bowmore (whisky distillery) should consensus lean that way but I think Bowmore distillery is more suitable. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as an addition, I figured it would worth us cross-posting this at WP:FOOD to get a wider range of editors involved to promote discussion Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As fas as I can see both Bowmore as Tomatin mention their names without the word "distillery". As far as I know, we don't invent or create new things, so tha name should be equal to the official name of the distillery (or the main name used on their website). Disambiguation as short as possible and only when necessary. No need for a disambiguation as "whiskey distillery" when there is only one Bowmore distillery. And the articles should contain all the information about the brands and varieties they produce, unless these are so well know that they qualify for a stand-alone article. The Banner talk 18:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A stray problems: the primary subject can either be about the malt, or the distillery. Per the spirit of WP:RETAIN, that should not be changed to fit naming consistency. I have a slight preference for existing articles on distilleries to be (re-)named "Bowmore" in case there is no disambig needed, and "Bowmore (distillery)" if there is. For existing articles about the drink "Bowmore" in case there is no disambig needed, and "Bowmore (whisky)" in case there is. For new articles, it would prefer whichever is more prevalent, probably the distillery. In very few cases separate articles should be needed. on a curmudgeoning note, I would prefer any time and effort invested in finding consensus on naming conventions to be redirected into improving the mess that is the state of the articles. 62.194.104.217 (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If the evidence points to the fact that the distillery is usually just referred to just by its name, without "distillery", then the article should be titled X (distillery). If, however, it is commonly referred to as "X Distillery", as many are on their websites and elsewhere, then that's how it should be titled. It should certainly not be titled X distillery in lowercase, as the name of an establishment is a proper name and both elements should be capitalised. We should certainly not arbitrarily decide, as editors have been doing, that the second element should not be capitalised for consistency reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was no simply for consistency reasons (that was part of it), I believed that X distillery was the correct way of formatting the names due to the "distillery" part not being a proper noun. However, it looks like consensus favours the either X Distillery or X (distillery) over X distillery.
 * I'm happy to either move them back or move them to something else but I think we need to decide how to determine which naming convention is appropriate for what articles as opposed to having them named arbitrarily as they were before. Can I also ask that, should people move pages they also update Template:Whisky distilleries in Scotland so there are no redirects. Cheers Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 16:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To put it a different way, if "distillery" is not capitalized, it is a term of disambiguation, rather than the name of the subject, and DAB terms should be in parentheses.
 * I think it's pretty clear that we should title the articles X or X Distillery, depending on what the facility seems to be called, or X (distillery) if disambigation is needed. So how do we proceed? Should we keep a list and discuss each one, or at least record the reason for naming them such? -Freekee (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I used the following template when I was working my way through, I would suggest starting here:


 * - Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the list of distilleries in question, but do we need a list showing what was agreed upon, and why? Or should we just discuss it in the articles' talk pages? -Freekee (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just be bold and go for it, the articles are hardly maintained anyway, there will be very little in the way of disagreement. If there is, deal on an ad-hoc basis. Reverts are cheap (though marginally less cheap here because of the preference for no redirects in nav templates). Also keep an eye out on List of distilleries in Scotland, though there redirects should be fine. 62.194.104.217 (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd love to, but the thing that started this whole thing was someone being bold and renaming a bunch of them. And I think it takes an admin to move a page back to something it used to be. -Freekee (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely a question of scope. If the article is about a line of whisky then the article is simply titled with the line's name i.e. "Ardbeg". If the article is about a physical place and, subsequently, the product created there, then it's the name of the place in question with an identifying adjective i.e. "Ardbeg distillery". If it's about the company which owns these places and produces and sells the whisky line then it's the company name i.e. "LVMH".

Since single malt Scotch whiskey is so uniquely tied to the place of origin I would consider all Scotch as having a proprietary "terroir", similar to how French estate bottled wine articles are handled. See Château Latour or any other Bordeaux estate wine. Of course with blended Scotch and Scotch blends you don't have a single point of origin so the article is simply the product line. Also, not to pick, but please don't confuse a specific product with a particular distillery as I've seen happen recently in the Glenkinchie article. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * About confusing product and distillery: I doubt it happens very often (read: more than once or twice, max) that it's a good idea to have a separate distillery article and a separate article on the malt. Since the content will be about identical it's a triviality which to make the primary subject. 89.146.29.181 (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Scope is, in fact, an important question. I think it should be about the distillery, since all the various product lines made by a distillery are unique to that place. Few of these articles are big enough (yet) to be split into separate articles for place and product. The owning companies are the most likely to require their own articles, but they're seldom inextricably linked to the distilleries. -Freekee (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Tasting notes for whiskies
For the article I'm currently working on, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tomintoul (distillery), I'm wondering wether or not to include tasting notes, and if so, for which bottlings. One can find tasting notes on practically anything, and the editorial status of those notes is not always clear. What are your ideas on it? 62.194.104.217 (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It's rare that any two tasters agree on much. Strictly following WP:RS, you'd seldom find any tasting notes you could use, since most published notes are the opinions of those writing them, even respected publications, like Whisky Magazine. The most well-known notes are written by the distilleries themselves, which is more like ad copy. I think the best we can do is mention house style, as long as there are reliable sources. -Freekee (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I broadly concur with Freekee. Tasting notes are entirely subjective and seldom published in a format that meet the criteria for reliable sources. That said I would add that there are a slew of reliable sources out there from people like Jim Murray and the late Michael Jackson who have published broad truisms about the general flavor characteristics of regions, sub regions and even specific distilleries. I would say sourced statements like "Laphroaig is know from its heavy use of peat with substantial flavors of smoke and brine", which I'm sure you can find in either author's works, would be just fine. Just no citing some random guy on Youtube or Whiskey Exchange who thinks the 10 Year has "hints of clove in the finish". TomPointTwo (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * These are pretty much my thoughts too. Jackson and Murray are such authorities that their notes might hold greater value as RS's, but it would lead to far too much hassle to include tasting notes for every bottling. Can I summorise here that: 1: if we do taste notes, only from the likes of Jackson and Murray, and only for a whole range at a time (i.e. "Laphroigh" with no specific age, and possibly named brands (i.e. Springbank / Longrow / Hazelburn all seperately )? 62.194.104.217 (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Even those like Jackson and Murray are primary sources. Be careful how you use them. You'd probably have to say something like, "according to Scotch whisky connoisseur Jim Murray..." Also, I don't think tasting notes are particularly "encyclopedic." The most that can be gained by the reader is what did these people think the whisky tasted like? It's not like movie reviews, where it's easy to write about what makes it appealing. -Freekee (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Whilst I can see the appeal I think it would be difficult to get an consensus and opens up the area for potential abuse. So on balance I'd say not. --Ethanbentley (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

On a slightly related note, it'd be cool if someone could haul it from AfC (if it suffices) Those things can take weeks at badly backlogged times. 62.194.104.217 (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)