Talk:List of cocktails/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Policies specific to the List of cocktails

Please consider the following to be "mini-policies" that apply only to the List of cocktails article. Edits may refer to these policies by number (e.g. removed LoC-3).

1. Only true cocktails (drinks made primarily with distilled spirits mixed or layered with another liquid other than water), should be listed in the List of cocktails. Consider these other articles and lists: Beer mix, Wine mix, Non-alcoholic mixed drink, Cocktail garnish, Mixed drink shooters and drink shots, Flaming beverages, and Drinkware. Read and Read
1.1. Fictional beverages (like the "Flaming Moe" and "Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster") belong in the List of fictional beverages, not here.Read
1.2. Layered shots may be listed here, but should be included in the Mixed drink shooters and drink shots article as well.Read
2. New drinks added to the list should meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, especially notability and citability.Read This article is for real cocktails that were historically or are commonly available today at typical drinking establishments.
3. Differences in name alone do not justify multiple listings. Use "or" for minor variations in spelling when there is no article, with both names bolded and listed alphabetically ( Tom O'Hawk or Tomahawk ). If one name has a linkable article, it must be listed first ( Boilermaker or Jimmy & Guinney ). When mutliple alternate names exist, use parentheses ( Carbomb (also known as Irish Carbomb or Belfast Carbomb) ). Read
4. Minor variations in ingredients do not justify multiple listings. If one ingredient may be substituted for another, use "or" (Tia Maria or Kahlua), or explain the substitution at the end of the recipe (151 Proof Rum can be substituted for the Everclear). For more significant variations, list the most traditional style first, followed by the variations (see Three Wise Men for a good example). Read
5. Brand names.
5.1. Generic ingredients should be listed (Irish cream, coffee liqueur, etc.), unless a specific brand is necessary to create the drink (Herbsaint Frappé, Jäger Bomb, etc.). If there is one brand more commonly used over competing brands, it could be listed parenthetically after the generic ingredient.
5.2. Proper brand names should be linked to their main article (Coca-Cola, Crown Royal, etc.), and proper names should be used instead of common names (Coca-Cola rather than Coke).
5.2.1. Dr Pepper' (no period after Dr) refers to the [[soft drink, and Dr. Pepper (with a period) refers to cocktails that only resemble the taste of the soft drink. Dr Pepper is a registered brand name, and should only apply to the actual brand, not things reminiscent of it.Read
5.3. Generic spirits and ingredients do not need linking, unless it is fairly uncommon or the link helps to distinguish or differentiate potentially confusing or similar items. Linking every occurrence of the word gin or whiskey only makes it more difficult to read the article.
6. Matters of style.
6.1. The standard formatting is a bullet (*), a space, three apostrophes ('''), the possibly linked drink name, three more apostrophes ('''), any additional names (see LoC 3), a space, a hyphen (-), another space, and the ingredients listed roughly in the order they are used to prepare the drink. Additional instructions or interesting information follows the ingredient list.
6.2. User proper references for anything that may be considered an opinion or that makes a claim.
6.2.1. Use the <ref> element for inline citations of information, or
6.2.2. Use one of the Wikipedia:Citation templates if one is appropriate.

External Links

I have noticed that several sites continue to be added and removed from the External Links list. Reasons given include removing spam links and reverting vandalism. At least one of the sites listed as a spam link is one I added, and I added it because I find it very useful in researching cocktails for this project. Another site that gets linked regularly is one I find fairly useless by comparison.

Without setting a hard limit, it would seem like five external links would be about right maximum number of links for a list this size. Ideally, all the links should offer good information with minimal overlap of duplicate information (although drink recipes should be pretty consistent by their nature). In evaluating sites, I look at simplicity (how easy is it to locate the information you need), completeness (a recipe index of 2000+ drinks is arguably more useful than one with only 20), usability (everything from a logical layout and site structure, to tools that help you in your research), professionalism (site design is clean; relatively spam and ad free, or if many ads are present, they are relavent and not misleading or intrusive; proper spelling is used; references are given frequently; etc.), and the emotional appeal of the site (is it enjoyable to surf the site?). --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Current Discussions

  • Proposals should indicate if the link is to be added as an additional link, will replace a link (if replacing, the new one should match in purpose with the link that is suggested for removal), or is to remove an existing link.
  • Discussion and voting will close after ten (10) days of the proposal.
  • If a clear consensus is not reached within the initial ten days, the discussion and voting may be withdrawn by the person who made the proposal (the proposal will fail), or be extended to close after thirty (30) days of discussion if debate is ongoing.
  • Links achieving only a weak consensus may be reconsidered after a minimum thirty-day waiting period, however, the link will remain as determined by the weak consensus during that waiting period (kept or removed).
  • Links achieving a strong consensus will have a minimum three month waiting period before reconsideration, and the link will remain as determined by the consensus during that waiting period.
  • If a site significantly changes its content or practices during a waiting period, the waiting period may be canceled and discussion may begin again based on the new circumstances.
  • Please use * '''KEEP''', * '''REMOVE''', or * '''COMMENT''' at the beginning of each response.
  • Also, remember to sign and date your opinion or comment using four tildes (~~~~). (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

  • "How to Make Cocktails" - Over 200 video demonstrations along with written instructions, for mixing a variety of cocktails (hosted at
I came across this this while rewriting the Bellini article. Wow! I estimated 219 different videos on how to make various cocktails. If they are all as good as the Bellini video, then I think these should become a standard link on every article for which there is matching video. Yeah, it will probably bump up their search engine ratings if we do that, but I think the the value it would add to our articles would be terrific. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Voting and Discussion
  • KEEP per my nomination above. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP well described. no obvious commercialism, e.g., bottle labels are turned away from camera. Philvarner 03:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • "" - 8500+ Drink Recipes including a "My Bar" feature where you tell it what you have in your bar and it will tell you what you can make
This site has been up and running for 6 years now with tons of drink recipes, drinking games, and some great drinking quotes. The "My Feature" does require you to sign up so that you don't need to re-enter all your ingredients each time you come back. Lots of other content all focused on Mixed Drinks.

Sotally 15:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Voting and Discussion
  • REMOVE Really has nothing unique and is actually pretty hard to browse. There's better and more authoritative sites out there Italydiplo (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Archived Discussions

The following discussions have been archived and arranged in alphabetical order for easy reference. Please do not modify these discussions. If you have something new to add, start a new proposal under Current Discussions above.

Initial Recommendations

  • KEEP - CocktailDB - The Internet Cocktail Database
  • KEEP - Good Cocktails - Mixed drink recipes, cocktails, and bartender guide
These two original recommendations have been uncontested for nearly two months. 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Looking through the last several edits, here are the three links I feel should remain listed in this article for as long as they continue to provide good, free content with minimal ads.

  • 1001cocktails - Comprehensive mixed drinks recipe database with ratings
  • CocktailDB - The Internet Cocktail Database
  • Good Cocktails - Mixed drink recipes, cocktails, and bartender guide

The three sites I listed above rank fairly high in all those categories to me, but there are probably better sites available of which I am unaware. Rather than everyone continually re-editing the list, propose new links here, and only add links that receive consensus. The three that I suggested are, of course, subject to replacement if better alternatives are suggested. --Willscrlt 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP - 1001cocktails - Comprehensive mixed drinks recipe database with ratings
The clear consensus (except for one anonymous user who voted multiple times under different IP addresses and altered other people's votes) is to keep this site. 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It has been stated by an anonymous user that 1001 Cocktails is too commercial of a site with too little useful information to include in this list. I personally disagree, because I have found the site invaluable in researching article information for the Cleanup Project. To avoid edit wars, I would would like to ask for your opinion about the site. Should it be included or omitted? Briefly explain your reasons. Thanks. --Willscrlt 13:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - For the reasons I stated above, as well as the fact that even though there are advertisements, they are low-key and do not interfere with navigation. The ranking feature is fairly unique and useful. The list of drink recipies is extensive.
  • Keep. The cover page, claims it has 2636 recipes., for comparison, claims to have 1239 (under Browse Drinks/ALL). AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Results: Keep - After 10 days of voting and no objections, the consensus appears to include the link.
Despite the user consensus, insists on deleting this valid link from the article, and from many others. I am tired of fighting his edits, and am mindful of 3RR. I requested he be blocked but the admins said it wasn't vandalism. I implore someone else to look at his edits and add back the relevant links. Nardman1 02:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
There never was a consensus. Willscrlt and I had already been over which links were acceptable, he slipped this in the discussion page knowing that nobody was reading it and decided to add the link again even though no one else agreed. My only concession with him in the past (on a different computer hence different IP) was that the link he added was fine, the other one is a spam link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC).
What is your concern about Your whole attitude on this matter is very frustrating. You repeatedly change the link, refuse to discuss it in public1, but leave messages on talk pages2 (where you indicate that you have no plans to read any responses). You apparently think that I am somehow affiliated with this site (which is simply not true in any sense of the word other than in visiting the site for looking up drink recipes). You also claim that the site is an MAF ("made for adsense") site and that you can "can spot an MFA site from a mile away"2; however, I think your spotting ability is skewed in this case. The other site you used in your example2 (which I won't dignify with an additional link), I agree with you totally. hat site is a blatant ad-sense (and others) spam site and completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. 1001cocktails sells things, but I disagree with Royalguard11 who opined that its "only purpose is to sell something"2. The site offers a store, yes, but it also offers a comprehensive drink recipe library with ratings, which really helps sort out which recipes and variations of recipes are the popular ones and which are hardly any more notable than ones that are made up on the spot. The drink recipe library is offered in four languages (French, English, Spanish, and Portuguese), something that is fairly unusual for any drink site, let alone one that supposedly only exists to sell things. If you speak French (which I don't), there is also news and a discussion forum. The news appears to be updated daily, though I cannot tell if it is hard hitting or soft sales, but it is yet another sign that the site has a bigger focus than only selling things. Another thing Royalguard11 said was that "We are an encyclopedia, not a directory of links, or a shopping helper."2. That is the very reason I added this discussion to this talk page.
An admin, AnonEMouse, is the one who turned it into a straw poll. Yes, I did end the discussion after 10 days, which is maybe too short a period. I don't know what is convention around here for straw polls. It did appear that the only one user (you) appeared to have any concerns about the site being listed. I've notice that more people tend to speak out against things than speak up for them, so if it was a bad site, I would think the site would have been shot down instead of receiving positive comments aside from yours.
I still maintain that is not a "spam link", but rather a useful, comprehensive, and engaging site for Wikipedians interested in lists of cocktails to visit. Note that I am not endorsing its inclusion on any pages other than the list pages. I do endorse its inclusion on pages where most people are visiting to find good lists of cocktails and other mixed drinks. Oh yes, another sign that the site is less commercial than most is that it does not push brand names. The drink recipes use generic terms with example brands used to illustrate. It makes it very nice if I need to cross-reference recipes here at Wikipedia.
Maybe it's just because I have a very different perspective on things than you do. I've not been "removing spam links from Wikipedia for years"2. Instead I have made over 1,200 edits this month on the English Wikipedia alone (and over 200 on Commons, and some on Wikibooks), mostly all to do with improving mixed drink and cocktails related articles, categories, and photos. 1001 is the one site I seem to refer to and use on a daily basis, simply for the reasons I've stated. As much as I am defending them, I wish I was in a position to make a little money from them, but such is not the case.
I guess you could say that we have both become experts in our areas of Wikipedia, and in this one case, our expert opinions are differing. I suggest we re-open the straw poll on through the end of January and see what sort of consensus develops in the course of another month. If the choice is to remove it at that time, then I'm totally fine with that decision. I also suggest that a neutral third-party make the call as to consensus at that point. --Willscrlt 01:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. PLEASE remember to sign your responses. If you've been around Wikipedia "for years", then you should know to do that by now. Also consider registering for an account, which will avoid the whole confusion with changing IP addresses. It also shows a different level of commitment to Wikipedia, because you are putting your "name" behind whatever you say or do. --Willscrlt 01:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Its a commercial link with a store, its a spam link whose whole purpose is to sell products, and I have seen evidence which suggests that you are associated with it.
The only "evidence" is your ongoing assertion that I am somehow involved. The site appears to be based in France [1], and I am a non-French-speaking person from the United States. My company's websites have no links to the site whatsoever. I am very conscientious about not spamming Wikipedia, so I will not even post the links here (though my personal webpage is listed on my user page, and my company is linked from there, if you must verify that with your own eyes). My primary concern is in improving Wikipedia by editing, improving articles through properly referenced additions and reorganization, and linking, when and where appropriate, to sites that offer readers a really good experience beyond Wikipedia. In the case of cocktail lists, I feel that 1001cocktails is currently the best site that does that. In the future, other sites may be better choices. Additionally, other Wikipedians might disagree with my assessment (though so far, they all seem to agree with me except you), and if a consensus develops that feels that way, I have no problem with the removal of the link. That is democracy and participation in action, which is one of the things I love about Wikipedia. --Willscrlt 06:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP The anon user changed my vote. That's blatant vandalism and I've reported him to the admins. Note again, I DID NOT VOTE DELETE. Nardman1 19:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just noticed that the link was to the main page of the site, which is in French and stresses the sales aspect of the site. I have the site bookmarked directly to the recipe database at, which bypasses much of that and gives you an English interface. I have updated the link in the list and in this section to that address instead. I know it is sometimes considered bad form, but I also added the bold delete in front of Nardman1's entry (hopefully you don't mind, Nardman1). Stating your vote clearly like that helps in tallying the votes at the end. --Willscrlt 01:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • DELETE - (deleting as is the new consensus). A vote isn't even necessary, let's focus on one irrefutable fact - the goodcocktails site is absolutely noncommercial, and the 1001 cocktails site is an online store FIRST and a source of info second. Whether you go to the English or the French version, the first thing you see is the online store icon at the top, and on the homepage, with product images on every page. Good Cocktails is managed by someone who wants to provide info, that site alone is actually adequate for the article (if someone needs a specific recipe, they can do what they've done for years, and that is Google it, wikipedia is not a link repository). 1001 Cocktails is the name of an actual company which sells products, they only added recipes to help push their items. You're not going to convince me that you aren't affiliated with that site, especially since you push its addition so hard and selectively decided that this page alone (out of every page you edit) should use alphabetical listings which conveniently post your site first. You're spamming an online store, there's no excuse for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Restored the link as the "consensus" was based on a forged vote by [[2]] who was thereafter blocked for a week for this vandalism. [[3]] Nardman1 22:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • DELETE the site is an online store —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
  • DELETE its a commercial link, it doesn't belong.—The preceding comment was added by (talk)3 January 2007.
3 votes by your 3 anonymous IPs do not make 3 separate votes. Thanks for the vandalism, sport, you're being reported. Nardman1 14:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - Please keep in mind that this discussion section is for discussion concerning 1001Cocktails, not GoodCocktails. I already agreed that GoodCocktails is a good site (it's in the original list I posted, and nobody has disputed that in the slightest).
1001Cocktails differs from other sites in several key points. 1) it is far more comprehensive, 2) it has a rating system that quickly filters out unpopular, non-notable, and joke drinks from the real ones, 3) its search engine is excellent for finding names for drinks when only the ingredients are known, 4) its search engine helps you locate alternate names for essentially the same drinks, 5) the search engine returns multiple drinks that match partial names, 6) the site is quad-lingual (French, English, Spanish, and , 7) it offers French speaking visitors the opportunity to read news articles and participate in discussion forums (which is not a reason to keep it, but some visitors might find that to be a benefit), 8) the site (without being at all pushy in the least) offers to sell a variety of useful bar tools to visitors who might not have everything they need to make the drinks they find (similar to IMDB offering to sell DVDs of movies that people research), 9) the site is brand neutral (which is very unusual), and 10) the entire recipe and news library are free of charge and require no registration. These are top-10 reasons why the site is one of the best in its category and certainly deserves to be listed in a list of cocktails.
As to the fact that I am not affiliated with it, you're right. I doubt there is any way that I can convince you that I am not affiliated with it. If you do not choose to believe me, that is fine. Just stop stating that I am affiliated with it, and I will stop stating that I am not. It is an entirely ridiculous argument, and it is completely non-productive. Even if I were (which I am not) affiliated, my points are still relevant to the discussion.
My notation about alphabetizing the list is not inconsistent. I just don't normally have to spell it out for people. Looking through my edit log, you will find I regularly alphabetize lists of information. Look at the List of cocktails itself. Alphabetizing information is pretty much a universal standard to avoid showing preference or endorsement of any particular product or service. Even if the site was zzzcocktails, I would still be recommending alphabetical order. I'm sorry that does not come before 1001Cocktails, but only because it would be one fewer thing for you to complain about. 1001Cocktails used a long-standing gambit to have their name appear first in the listing. Look in your local telephone directory, and I am sure you will find many instances of "AAA Bail Bonds", "AAA Locksmith", and the like. It's not that I want 1001cocktails to come first. That's just the way things sort out.
Please also remember that I am the one who brought this entire topic up for discussion. An admin suggested the straw poll. You did not choose to explain your position until after the close of the poll, but there seemed to be no opposing views other than yours (which remains the case), so closing the poll at that time seemed the logical thing to do. I also reopened the poll when you stated that not enough time had passed to develop consensus. You were correct. There is even stronger consensus growing to KEEP the link than there was earlier. For that reason, please stop vandalizing the page by removing the 1001Cocktails link until and unless a strong consensus develops to remove the link as of the end of this month. Thank you.
--Willscrlt 06:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, It's clear that the anon with multiple IPs is a troll and vandalist. Crumbsucker 19:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A weak, but undisputed consensus indicated this site is not a good choice to list. 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A different anonymous user suggested this link: - Drink recipe listings. Please vote and discuss your reasons. Thanks. --Willscrlt 13:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Submitted by (talk · contribs · count)
  • Delete - this seems to be a chat board, rather than a well ordered database. It also requires registration. All this means finding information is harder than for the other sites. The ads also seem more prominent than on the other sites, but that's less important. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - A discussion forum with few articles of any worthwhile quality; plenty of opinions. --Willscrlt 22:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Results: Delete - After 10 days of voting and with only the original contributor voting to keep, the consensus appears to not include the link.

  • KEEP - - A list of the cocktail recipes, many with additional information
No consensus developed (only the original, undisputed nomination). However, people continue to use the related Drinkboy recipe template, so that is an indirect vote in favor of the site. The site will be added to the article. 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Apparently someone in the past felt that was a worthwhile enough site to create a template Drinkboy recipe for linking an article to its recipe on DrinkBoy. I have looked at DrinkBoy, and it seems to be a pretty good site. The recipes the owner (Robert Hess) includes are selective, and it is not a site with every drink under the sun (that's one thing for which 1001Cocktails is good), but there are some good write ups, too (see Drinkboy recipe|Mai Tai). I recommend linking to DrinkBoy in the External Links section of any Wikipedia article for which there is a detailed write-up (the bold ones) at DrinkBoy. Additionally, I'd suggest a link to DrinkBoy be added to the List of cocktails article, too. Please vote and discuss your reasons within the next 10 days. Thanks. --Willscrlt 01:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - per nomination. --Willscrlt 01:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - I was going to close the poll as a Keep, but I just noticed that I had incorrectly typed the name of the template in the examples. Just so that there is no chance of a procedural complaint, and since one vote is hardly a consensus, unless there are objections, I will leave discussion open for 5 more days. --Willscrlt 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was to delete as the site appears to be a work-in-progress. In six-months to a year, the site might deserve re-consideration if it continues to improve. 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

An anonymous user suggested this link: Drink Lab - Cocktail Drink Recipes, Shot Recipes and more. Please vote and discuss your reasons within the next 10 days. Thanks. --Willscrlt 08:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Submitted by (talk · contribs · count), who has been placing the link on numerous cocktail articles throughout Wikipedia.
  • Delete - I wanted to like it, because it is so pretty! The slick, attractive layout is a big improvement over a lot of drink sites I've looked at lately. However, it appears to still be under development (according to text on the home page). The drink recipes are confusing (compare Incredible Hulk 3 to Incredible Hulk here), and it feels like you are shopping at a store rather than researching information. I think the site is off to a good start, but I do not feel it is currently a best of class site worth listing at this time. If individual drink articles are really well done there, then a link might be acceptable. However, plastering numerous drinks with generic entries as has been done is too much. --Willscrlt 08:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - There is no clear consensus (though Delete has the stronger argument), so I suggest we keep this discussion open the same 5 additional days that DrinkBoy is remaining open--unless someone objects. --Willscrlt 05:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I too wanted to approve, but the work-in-progress nature of the site is apparent (such as the way the alphabetical sort feature doesn't work!!), as its commercialisation. However, I feel it has the potential to grow into a valuable resource, so the link shouldn't be lost, just included in <--! tags with a note to check on it occasionally and, if necessary, reopen the discussion. For now, however, 1001cocktails is far superior. Happy-melon 20:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cement Mixer

Cement mixer redirects here, but isn't listed. I don't know how to do all this stamping stuff, and it interests me about as much as the wikipedia policy on policies and other pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Also, cocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured list?

This article would make a fine "Featured list". It'd probably need some more references (featured articles always do). It's a very nice list of which Wikipedia can be proud and so it should be recognized. Peer review is the usual first step towards featured status. -Will Beback · · 07:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Duncan MacLeod???

"Duncan MacLeod - Coca-Cola, mixed with equal parts of Scotch whisky and sake over crushed ice. Named after a fictional character from the Highlander series, where an English actor (represented by the Coca-Cola) plays an immortal Scotsman (the Scotch whisky) with a Japanese blade (the sake)"

Firstly, the film Highlander does not feature a character named Duncan MacLeod. There is a Connor MacLeod, but he is played by American-born French actor Christopher Lambert. Also, even if he was an English actor, why would he be represented in a cocktail by Coca-Cola, surely the most famously American product in history? Highlander Tashcat_uk 20:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, having researched this further, i see that there was a television spin-off of the highlander series, in which an english actor did indeed play a character named Duncan. I stand corrected, however i still don't think any Englishman would be happy to be 'represented' by Coca-Cola. A more appropriate soft drink would be Irn-Bru, or a cola drink from its Scottish manufacturer, A.G. Barr. Irn-Bru I've just mixed this variation using ballantine's pure malt 12 year old, and hakutsuru sake, and it isn't bad. Not sure if irn-bru is easily obtainable in the US, but if one wanted to use an english soft drink, one could try Britvic. Tashcat_uk 20:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Living in California, I've never seen or heard of either Irn-Bru or Britvic. Coca-Cola, obviously, is much more readily available worldwide. There probably are some specialty food or beverage shops that carry them, and maybe even some British styled pubs. Either way, that's how the recipe was originally recorded, when I transcribed it. The meanings were not as clearly attributed to the specific ingredients as I have in my rewrite of the original deleted article, but given the three meanings, I don't see what else would make sense. I thought that it was rather a stretch as I typed it in. If there is a sense that the symbolism is offensive, the drink could be removed. I am a bit dubious of the notability of the drink anyway. --Willscrlt 09:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Couple more drinks?

Link for mind eraser doesn't work properly - I'm a n00b and am not sure how to find the one it should redirect to... Sorry --Crashvirus 14:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There does not appear to be an article for the drink. I removed the link and added the description. This appears to be a fairly uncommon cocktail (maybe not in your area, but in the grand scheme of things). --Willscrlt 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also - I noticed a few I knew that weren't listed. I added Vodka Sunrise but didn't create a page for it. a Quick Fuck (abbreviated to QF for those of us not wishing to call it something such) is a variation of a "Shit on Grass" (sorry again - I don't know if there is an abbreviation for that, i'm going to refer to it as an SG just here)

SG - Khalua and midori, served as a shot, the midori is poured onto the baileys from a bar spoon so that it sits in layers. QF - Khalua, Midori, Baileys. Served as a shot, same as a SG but with an extra layer of baileys. --Crashvirus 14:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You did a good job on the Vodka Sunrise entry. I'm a little confused because you state that the grenadine, added last, sits on the bottom. I assume that it, but that seems backwards. I assume that as the grenadine sinks to the bottom through the other liquids that it leaves a bit of red throughout, becoming more intensely red as it lands on the bottom. If that is correct, then I will update the description to make that a little more clear. Otherwise, it was perfect. Not every mixed drink needs or warrants an entire article. Articles should only be created when there is a lot of background and cultural information available that explains why the drink is important historically, in pop culture, or both. Otherwise, the brief reference you gave is all that is needed.
I have also added entries for SG (no alternate names found) and QF (also commonly referred to as a Quick Fox). Thanks for the suggestions. --Willscrlt 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a page of "XXXX variations" would be good, e.g., Vodka variations, Brandy variations, for drinks which sub a spirit. For instance, a Rum Sidecar is a variation of a Sidecar that doesn't warrant it's own page. A Vodka Sunrise is an uncommon variation of a Tequila Sunrise, so... As for the QF and the SoG, maybe a "novelty drink" page would be good to store these, e.g., drinks that are popular only because of their name. Of course, many of these quite obscene, so maybe it would be best to keep them off.
You're right about the grenadine, it's very thick and sinks to the bottom. If it went in first, it would actually incorporate into the drink because of the agitation of pouring the other.

Philvarner 03:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Nice useful page. Someone should try to get turn this into a featured list. Maya Levy 22:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both Will Beback and Maya Levy for the compliments and suggesting the nomination. I would like to request that any such nominations be delayed until 2006-03-01, which is the date the Cleanup Project on all the cocktails and mixed drinks is scheduled for completion. I am still doing a lot of work on the article, nearly every day as I make changes to all the other related articles. I'd love some more help, so if you are interested, please visit WikiProject Cocktails for more information. Thanks! --Willscrlt 23:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Where everything went

You might notice that lots of things are missing from this list. That's because they all have their own new articles now. These are the changes I made in the last 18 hours or so:

New pages
Massively improved pages
Still to do
  • Drinkware
  • Wine mix - Anyone want to take a whack at this one? It will include wine punches, too. See Beer mix for a staring point.

I hope everyone likes the work I have been doing. Comments? Rants? Compliments? :-) --Willscrlt 14:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


What is the consensus about the level of detail in this list? There appear to be three competing styles:

  • Chocolate Soldier - 1½ fl oz gin, ¾ fl oz vermouth, juice of half a lime; shaken

Is it the intention that each cocktail be followed by a brief description of its contents? If so (and I would support such a move) there are a LOT of cocktails which need explaining, even if it's mostly just extraction from the main article. What's the consensus?

Hi Happy-melon. The intention (as sort of explained at the top of the list) is to have a list of links to full articles.
  • Full article links should only have additional information following the link, if 1) it has alternate names, 2) is an IBA Official Cocktail, 3) needs disambiguation, 4) some other information that helps people find the right article.
  • If the drink does not have a full article, an extremely abbreviated recipe (liquors and mixers, their proportions, method [mix, stir, etc.] standard glass and garnish) and, briefly, any notable information about the drink is provided after the title. This avoids having a bunch of stub articles with this information, and it keeps the list to a manageable size.
  • Any drink for which even that basic information is unavailable (i.e., the drink name only) is omitted from the list.
  • Drinks that are covered within a different article should not be linked directly to the article, as that is confusing (if someone clicks Gibson and doesn't know a Gibson is a type of Martini, it's very confusing). Instead, a (see Martini) should be placed after the unlinked name so that readers know that the Martini article is where a Gibson is discussed.
In your examples, all three are correct. Bronx is a full article, properly linked. Chocolate Soldier is a drink with very little information avaialble. Alexander is a drink that earlier had a stub article that was condensed into this reference. It is longer than most of the drink notations, because there was a little more information available to add. There was not, however, enough to warrant an entire article when what you see here is all the information there was available.
What is bad is when there is a link and a description of the drink. The redundant drink recipe information clutters the list. One has to be careful, however, because often the links were added by well-meaning people who linked to something other than the drink. (e.g., Mudslide to Mudslide) In those cases, removing the link and keeping the recipe is the proper thing to do; otherwise, you end up losing the drink recipe completely.
Ok thankyou for that clarification. However I'd argue that, while Alexander is obviously the least useful entry of the three, Chocolate Soldier is more useful than Bronx. If you've already had this discussion then please forgive me, but I'd think that it would assist people in knowing if they have the right drink if a very brief list of ingredients is included. There are probably also people who'll use this list to search for nw cocktails that they might like to try: for such people, a list of ingredients is probably all they're looking for. I'd advocate that the list would look more professional if all the entries followed the Chocolate Soldier format. By that reckoning, for instance, Alexander would become something like "equal parts gin, creme de cacao, and half and half, shaken with ice. Sometimes topped with grated nutmeg or cinnamon.", the last sentence being optional. Of course, it's important not to lose any of the information currently held in the list, so some drinks (like Alexander) would have to wait until proper articles can be created for them. Happy-melon 11:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I definitely see your point. Having just a name without any other information requires a click-through to see even if the drink you are clicking on is the right one or not. That is somewhat inconvenient. The alternative, however, is what we were dealing with before the cleanup. There were conflicting recipes, a random, incoherent mixture of information and formats, and maintaining it was extremely difficult.
Maybe there could be a middle ground somewhere. Instead of a recipe, per se, list a primary ingredient or two. Not a full recipe, just sort of a bit more disambiguation. That way, if someone hates pineapple, they won't bother clicking on the Piña Colada link. Also, it's the proportions that tend to be disputed (some people seem to like stronger drinks than others--go figure).
The most difficult thing I see is how to help other editors understand the preferred format. Most seem to understand that "link = no info" and "no link = provide info". I think that helping them understand brief info vs. very brief info could be quite a challenge.
I'm certainly open to new idea and suggestions.
As to Alexander, that was a separate article that never went anywhere. It was deleted and redirected to this list because there's not enough information to make a worthwhile stand-alone article. There will be more of those as the cleanup continues and we kill off more micro-stubs. Now, if someone could find a lot of useful information on Alexander (like I did for B-52 (cocktail), which had been deleted 2 or 3 times before), and can create a good article, that's a different story.
--Willscrlt 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there any conseus as to whether the description should deal in absolute quantities (eg 1½ fl oz gin, ¾ fl oz vermouth) or relative quantities (eg one part vermouth to two parts gin). I would suggest the latter, as cocktails can of course be mixed in any quantity. Happy-melon 19:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As to proportions. Heh. There doesn't seem to be any standard yet. I copied your question to and continued the conversation over at the WikiProject style manual talk page on Measurements, since this is a Wiki-wide discussion, not just specific to this article. --Willscrlt 00:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Discussion to continue there. Happy-melon 11:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see proportions removed and replaced with links to the Bartending wikibook and external sites. Two reasons:
* people will constantly edit the proportions to be what they think is correct.
* it is essentially a recipe, which is not part of wikipedia.


Hi. An anonymous user just edited part of the introduction I originally wrote, and it changes the meaning of the introduction quite a bit. I like both statements and wanted a broader opinion:

  1. Two creations may share the same name, but taste very different from each other due to differences in how the drink is prepared.
  2. Two creations may have the same name but taste very different because of differences in how the drinks are prepared.

In the first, the intent was to show that two very different drinks sometimes share the same name. In the second, it seems to show that the same drink can taste differently due to variations in preparation. I'm going to leave it as-edited, but I wanted to bounce it off of you to see if anyone had any other thoughts/preferences. Sometimes it's a lot of fun to see how things you type get re-edited into something new and different. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 11:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Since this is actually a much bigger task than just changing this list, Discussion has been moved to Mixed Drinks WikiProject for discussion and planning. You do not have to be an active participant of the WikiProject to join in on the discussion. Everyone is welcome. However, you are also welcome to participate in the project if you like. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 08:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I am going to start working on a more thorough categorization and listing of cocktails. Comments on the following:

  • I would like to see this page become an alphabetical list of all of the cocktails in the database, without cagegorization or description.
  • Links on this page to individual pages which categorize drinks, such as "Cocktails with Rum", "Cocktails with Amaretto", "Fizzes", "Flips", "Sours" (note that these individual pages would have overlap, since a drink can both contain rum and be a fizz)
  • A new page with something like "Historical Cocktail Styles" (please, suggest a better title) with sections on "Cobblers", "Sangrees", etc. These are of historical importance, but there is not much to say other than what their defining features are and the standard variations.
  • I would like to standardize language when referring to groups of cocktails, e.g., sours, fizzes, etc. Different articles use different works, which can be confusing. Possible options are:
    • Class
    • Style
    • Category
    • Type

Philvarner 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs to be planned very carefully before we go about implementing it. Manual lists are difficult to maintain, and categories will help to reduce some of that workload.

A totally-alphabetical list is actually not very helpful. If you don't believe me, take a look at the long, sprawling list of cocktails on the Glossary of Cocktails at the WikiBooks Bartending Guide. It's actually much easier to find things here than there if you have a clue as to the primary alcohol type. That, of course, is the problem with this type of list. If you know you are looking for a jellybean cocktail, but you don't know it is made with Anisette, and if you don't know that Annisette is currently classified under cocktails with lesser known spirits, then you might have a hard time finding it.

Another thing to consider is that there are a lot of redirect pages that currently link into various places within the list. For example, by removing the beer-related lists, you probably broke about 10-15 redirects that now no longer point to the correct location. This list is almost like a portal to the entire mixed drinks area, and even little changes have big impacts to a lot of articles.

Since this is actually a much bigger task than just changing this list, let's move the discussion over to a new section at Mixed Drinks WikiProject just to discuss and plan this.

You do not have to be an active participant of the WikiProject to join in on the discussion. Everyone is welcome. However, you are also welcome to participate in the project if you like. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 11:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking of categorization recently, and I'd like comments on the following:

  • For cocktails that involve beer, wine, or other non-distilled alcohol, I do not think we should distinguish between "Beer cocktails" and "Cocktails with beer" and the same for wine. For beer, there are no "true cocktails" which contain beer as a minority ingredient. Some were miscategorized per these guidelines, which I moved to the Beer cocktal page. As for wine cocktails, I don't think it matters which is the greater ingredient. For instance, a Bellini and Mimosa are sparking wine and fruit. A [French 75] is more similar to a gin fizz, but with champagne instead of carbonated water. I think it's a confusing distinction to put one in one category and another in a different category (wine vs. gin), since the typical user looking it up has no idea what is in either (which is why they're looking it up). Therefore, I would like to have one category for each "Beer cocktail" and "Wine cocktail" and not distinguish. Cocktails that are in either in of these categories which are associated with a spirit (eg., French 75) will also appear on the List of Cocktails. Also, if we continue to have two places for beer and wine cocktails, people will contiually try to add cocktails that are on one list to the other without checking.
  • Two popular drinks which are missing are Spanish Coffee and Irish Coffee. There is an Irish Coffee page, but it is mostly a recipe. I'm going to add a new page "Coffee cocktails" and put Irish Coffee, Spanish Coffee, and all of the other common "National" coffees here, since they're all the same.
  • There are quite a few cocktails that have more information about them than can easily go in the List of Cocktails, but not enough to warrant a whole page. I'm going to add new pages called "Other traditional cocktails", "Other classic cocktails", "Other modern cocktails", and "Other contemporary cocktails". The distinction is :
    • Other traditional cocktails: styles (e.g., Smash, Flip) and specific cocktails (e.g., Mint Julep, which has it's own page) which have documentation before 1887 or appear in Jerry Thomas' Bartenders Guide 1887 edition. This is a bit arbitrary, but the information from that era is sparse and the Thomas book is the main documentaion. Darcy O'Neill at The Art of Drink has scanned the book and has it available online.
    • Other classic cocktails: 1887 - 1934 (End of Prohibition in the US) Cocktail creation went flat with Prohibition, and there's only one notable cocktail created during it, in Paris, whose name by brain will not reveal right now.
    • Other modern cocktails - 1934 (Post-Prohibition) to 1990. Cosmopolitan, I can't think of any others right now.
    • Other contemporary cocktails - Anything more recent, including novelty/trendy cocktails like the Incredible Hulk.
  • One result of the separation into the categories is it will limit newly-created cocktails to being put in the "contemporary" section, so there are less changes to everywhere else. This will also have the effect of separating "historical" cocktails, like the Martini, Manhattan, Margarita, from "popular" cocktails, like Crunk Juice, which I think is good for encyclopedic reasons.
  • Consistent formatting for List of Cocktails page. I think the List of Cocktails page should be standardized such that (1) it is alphabetical, (2) all entries have a description listing ingredients which can be in the drink, (3) any information other than the ingredients will go into the appropriate "Other" page if there is not enough for an individual page. If users are looking for cocktails by spirit, then they can use the "Category:" pages. This solves some of the problem with putting each cocktail into a bucket on the page, like, what if a cocktail has both rum and vodka, which bucket should it go into? This way it doesn't matter, since it is in one place of the List and then in each of the Category: pages.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philvarner (talkcontribs)

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.

Beer movement

I moved all of the beer-related cocktail content to beer cocktail. All of the ones listed here were either also on the Beer cocktail page, should have been on that page because the primary composition was beer, or were not important or did not exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philvarner (talkcontribs) 08:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Cocktails that don't exist or are unimportant

This is intended as a list of cocktails which people have tried to add to this list that either don't exist or are unimportant. For example, if someone adds "The Woodpecker" and it's a drink their friend created the other night made of midori, triple sec, parfait amour, and grenadine, it doesn't belong. This entry is intended to document research and exclusions so that it's easier to see them when removed Philvarner 03:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • "527- Equal Parts Lime Twisted Gin and Lemonade;stirred" - 2/11/07 - no hits found on google, never heard of it User:Philvarner
  • Blak Celebration Philvarner 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Idiot Brandon Philvarner 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Mulato Philvarner 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Rf5 - Dr Pepper soft drink mixed with Bacardi Vanilla or original Bacardi white rum making an alcoholic Dr Pepper Slurpee. Philvarner 03:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Robert Graham - ⅓ Wray and Nephews White Rum, ⅔ Red Bull
  • Rudi Wichepep - Rum and Diet Wild Cherry Pepsi
  • Dirty Diaper - A shot of tequila in a shot glass, the inside of which has been covered with mayonnaise. (there is a drink with this name, but not description, and it is unimportant) Philvarner 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ruben Libre - similar to a Cuba Libre; a mix of tequila, lime and cola. Believed to have been popularized at The Highlife, a bar in Springfield, Mo. Named after a customer who would always order the drink. (no google hits) Philvarner 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Snow Crash - Invented by Ed Cutrell, this involves scooping snow at high altitude and pouring equal parts tequila, light rum, vodka and tonic water with a splash of lime juice over the glass and drinking repeatedly until one crashes; named after the novel Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson. (no google hits) Philvarner 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Cocktails with grain alcohol"

At the moment I do not believe that the number of articles potentially falling into this category is sufficient to warrant inclusion. However let us collect a list of such articles below. If this list grows sufficiently we can consider adding it to as a list category. Happy-melon 08:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Purple Passion"-grape juice & shine
Mix 50 /50 remembering that shine is 100 proof
Note- many drinking purple passion become immobile

/s/ Ila Ab dragger Joe ! ~

Yucca Flats / Pink G** D*****

This Drink I invented during many parties so that it spread across the USA in late 1960's via USAF & college partiers and "stews" ... a quick understanding is that it is lemonade with vodka vs water and the pink version is adding cherry juice to give it a pink look... as it tastes like lemonade when made correctly, and so it makes most think it is harmless when it is mostly vodka...

Begin with a wide mouth gallon jug...

Squeeze 6 lemons juice into the jug Add ab 1/2 cup of sugar Swirl Fill jug with crushed ice (it will frost over) Add "1/5" or 1 quart of 80 or 100 proof vodka ...

As this versions is esp strong you can add 1 Jar of marchino cherries and juice About 1 pint of water

We used to buy and make this 10-20 vodka quarts at a time and mix in huge vat-like pots from the O club and so have 10-20 gallons / gallons ...

One of the effects is that on drinking this punch like drink in only about 30-45 minutes, the level of noise goes from normal to a loud din as people begin yelling at each out so souses they begin to speak very loud or ab yell...

footnote- assistance in getting home is recommended ... remember the Ugly (of the Good the Bad & the Ugly), the GTO driver who missed a turn, zoomed across a snow field and ate its tires off still "driving home" ... then the same doode next party ran off a cliff ...

/s/ Yucca Meister ~~

Pina Colada Record

On going to Navy O Club at Camh Rahn AFB one nite with McG, Turtle Doc & me, the waitress came over and we ordered 10 Pina Colalda's apiece (we were breaking in the Turtle (later a judge) to Nam, and as those 10 arrived, ordered 10 more apiece, and when those 2nd 10 arrived ordered 10 more apiece and when those arrived ordered 10 more apiece (total 40 pina colada's apiece), (we made a larger attempt to drink all these pina colada's and came close) ... on leaving McG stopped on highway nearby for us to take a swim / skinny dippin in South China sea where the attack dawgs patrolled, so we were run off and on leaving beach, i leaped over the side of the pick up truck, & landed on a lingering highball glass which broke to slice my foot and we went to the hospital which saved any further entanglement with the accompanying MPs who had stopped to query McG who was directing traffic nude to get help for my sliced foot....

footnote- since the entire table top was covered with empty glasses and there were only 4 of us, we did get a few remarks from commanders at a nearby table later...

/c/ Combat Jag Sally

Cocktails with absinthe

With the renaissance of absinthe over the last few years - now spreading to the USA - I wanted to add some of the 104 absinthe cocktails in The Savoy Cocktail Boook. In fact I have already done some work on this on my absinthe blog. Should I start adding a new section or just add this link to the external link section? Alanmoss 20:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No Bahama Mama?

Is the Bahama Mama not a well known cocktail? I'd add it, but I'm not sure if there is a standard recipe for them. I came to wikipedia to find out exactly what's in it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rampage455 (talkcontribs) 03:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up

I've removed the unnecessary bolding (per WP:MOS), culled the non-linked and redlinked entries, and taken out the sole entry in external links, which seemed unremarkable in the many drink sites easily found through Google. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job with the cleanup. The bold links everywhere were definitely a huge eyesore. Swamilive (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You forgot the absinthe ones ;) I got 'em for you. Swamilive (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How does that work

Why does the mudslide fall under 'drinks with vodka' but it links to an explanation that the cocktail is not made with vodka. This should be straightened out by someone other than me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

cocktails with "flavored" or infused vodka?

The listed seem to be "vodka" in general. Any input on cocktails with "infused" or "flavored" vodka? Watermelon, strawberry, etc. -- (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Paralyzer

The link given from the Paralyzer (under the Tequila drinks) links to a drink not containing Tequila. Being as I'm not registered, I'm not going to edit the page, but someone might want to decide which recipe to list. I'd venture a guess that the article was written in reference to this ( recipe, but the drink's listing is for this ( recipe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Centilitres to ounces

I'll just throw it out there, but wouldn't it be WAY easier to actually utilize the information presented in the cocktail ingredient listings if the volumes were standardized to be in ounces instead of the mix of ounces and centilitres? Niksko (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if you are from the United States or UK where ounces are common. However, most of the rest of the world uses metric, so centiliters is easier for them. Further, the IABA Official Cocktails are specified in centiliters because that's the way the drinks are specified by the IABA.
In the past (since 2007 at least), the Wikiproject Mixed Drinks participants and other editors have agreed to treat oz and cl much the same as the English Wikipedia treats the difference between American and British English... if there's a standard, follow it. Otherwise, however the original author started it out, stick with it. Or, if the article doesn't have internal consistency, the most commonly used measurement should be given. Or, include both (with the standard or more common measurement listed first and the alternate in parentheses). In short, it would be easier to give just one measurement standard, but because the world hasn't picked a single measurement system, we are stuck supporting both for now. Good idea though. If you haven't checked out the Wikiproject yet, please do. We can always use people with good ideas and a willingness to help improve the articles! —Willscrlt “Talk” ) 02:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


if each item were accompanied by a one-sentence summary of the ingredients, this page could become the authoritative resource that people print out and tack behind the bar. It would be a lot of work, but I think it would be a good goal to work towards. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 14:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe it could transclude text from the "ingredients" field(s) of the {{Infobox }}