Talk:Pisco sour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Pisco Sour)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Featured articlePisco sour is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 15, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 5, 2012Good article nomineeListed
December 14, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 23, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

IBA Recipe and Infobox[edit]

The infobox should be a quick summary of the relevant preparation information in the text. I can understand the need to specify that the IBA recipe for the cocktail is a single one, but it is illogical to delete the information on the national variations of the cocktail. That the cocktail has different ingredients in Chile and Peru is a key element of their distinction (which, due to the dispute between both countries, makes it all the more important to point out).--MarshalN20 Talk 02:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

To point out that there is a difference between the national recipes is fine...but not in the infobox of an IBA cocktail. There is a set of rules and standards for cocktails and among them is that, if the drink is an IBA drink, then that recipe is the only one that is relevant, and is not to be deviated from. Thus, national variations goes in the text, not in the infobox.85.229.56.88 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
A cocktail being listed by the "IBA" does not make it property of it. The IBA is just another variation of the cocktail, but no more or less important than the versions from Peru and Chile. It's not okay to fool the reader into thinking there is a "standard" Pisco Sour version.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Which part of 'set of rules and standards set forth to be used on Wikipedia' did you miss?31.208.103.192 (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@MarshalN20:, the use of the IBA manual is because it is a widely utilized guide for blending of various drinks, as such a lot of bartenders, restaurants and bars use the recipe from the book as the template for the drink when ordered by patrons. By that metric, it is the most common recipe found internationally. Yes there are variants, but this version would be the one most people would encounter, hence its use. Also, please read up on WP:Infoboxes, this will give a more thorough description of their use and the manner in which we populate the fields within them. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 03:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I have no interest in dragging on a petty dispute, but thank you for the explanation Jeremy. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should footnote clarification in the infobox be kept?[edit]

Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
There is a clear consensus that the clarification footnote shouldn't be in the infobox. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:17, 10 December 2015 (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.

Should the infobox have a footnote clarification on the difference in traditional versions of the cocktail from Peru and Chile? MarshalN20 Talk 03:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  • No - I don't necessarily think there needs to be a footnote. If a reader wants clarification on the differences between the two then they will look further into it themselves. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep footnote but not in the infobox. The infobox footnote is too small and un-aesthetic. The footnote would do better if explained at the bottom of article. Dentren | Talk 07:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No a footnote should not be added to the inbox but explained in further detail in the body of the article, perhaps in the Preparation and variants section. Meatsgains (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pisco sour. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pisco sour. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)