Talk:Buffalo Trace Distillery

Most Award-winning

The ref for calling Buffalo Trace the "most award-winning" bourbon in the world is simply a page that states that it is the most-award winning bourbon, without any sort of explanation or justification for the statement, like a list of awards, or at least the number of awards it has won compared to Beam, Heaven Hill, Brown-Forman, et al. As such, it is not really verifiable. I'm deleting that. If anyone objects, respond or find a better justification. Josh (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buffalo Trace Distillery. 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/20100918180941/http://buffalotrace.com/main.asp?page=distillery_awards to http://www.buffalotrace.com/main.asp?page=distillery_awards

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The product catalog

I see there has been an edit war over the product catalog. Per WP:NOTCATALOG, I suggest we convert this to a simple list instead of a table, and remove the distributor field. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Well the purpose of that column is to illustrate which brands belong to other companies instead of the distillery's current owners (the Sazerac Company), as some are made under comtract, but I wouldn't object to strenuously to its removal if consensus is that it is too detailed for the article. oknazevad (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The list of brands is useful, but I'm not sure the current table does a good job of identifying that some of the brands are produced under contract, since it is not clear to most readers that this is what the "Distributor" column means, and the table is littered with the usual assortment of fictitious business names. It might be better to create two lists – one for brands owned by Sazerac and one for brands produced as joint ventures or under contract with someone else who owns the brand name. I am skeptical of the "Old Fashioned Copper Distillery" DBA name. Are we sure that shouldn't be "Old Fire Copper", since that was apparently the name of the associated original distillery? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It was not at all clear to me that's what the distributor field is for. In fact I never would have suspected if you two hadn't told me. So I think some sort of adjustment in the table would be a good thing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of breaking into lists with subheaders stating who owns what. Seems a simple, elegant solution. oknazevad (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Now what would you think of removing the non-notable entries from the list? Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I believe I was already somewhat familiar with every spirit in the list except the vodka and the Kelsey Creek brand, and I think they are notable enough to include. The vodka is desirable to include as a way of showing that the distillery is not limited to bourbon and rye whiskey production – it is the only listed product that isn't a bourbon or rye or a derivative of bourbon or rye. I removed Kelsey Creek, as I think that isn't really one of their brands and it isn't listed on their website (I believe it is distilled at the Barton distillery, based on the limited information I was able to easily find about it, although it may be bottled at Buffalo Trace). At 21 items, I don't think the current list is excessively lengthy (and we don't seem to have a huge amount of other things to say about Buffalo Trace, so we don't need to be especially stingy with the product list). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

antique collection

Does the recently added term "antique collection" actually convey any useful information or is it just marketing fluff? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Company claims to be the oldest

The article states "The company claims the distillery to be the oldest continuously operating distillery in the United States.[5]" and cites the company website. Doesn't this need to be verified by another source besides their own website to be included? Or is this allowed because it says "The company claims"? Sfern824 (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The latter. If we said "it is the oldest distillery" and cited the company website, that would not be independent verification, but since were just using it to source a claim about themselves, it is valid. As for whether or not it really is the oldest continuously operating distillery, that's a fuzzier thing to state because of prohibition, so it's best we don't draw a conclusion at all. oknazevad (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

See List of historic whisky distilleries for various similar claims. — BarrelProof (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

What's historical and what's legend is a little vague with cited dates for 1775, 1805, and 1812. (I just removed a fourth date--1792--from the infobox that had no citation.) Certainly you can have separate dates for the operation, company and buildings but that's not clear to me which would be which. I initially adding several date categories, then removed them. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)