Talk:Horse's neck
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | On 23 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Horse's Neck to Horse's neck. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of cocktails which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
History section of the horses neck.
editWhile doing research on the Moscow Mule, a related drink a found this article and looked at the sources used for the history section. The section says that it originated in the 1890s but I couldn't find anything the the book to suggest this. The earliest mention of this drink in the book that was cited came from 1907 in an issue of life magazine. I know this is a very niche complaint but alcohol mystery is already shrouded in enough myths that I feel this should be corrected. Thank you. SaltyCalculator (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
"Deleted over half the article without any consensus"
edit@Crusadinggoonie: I deleted the popular culture section because it's filled with trivia contrary to guideline MOS:POPCULT. I don't think any of the examples show a significant impact on popular culture, they are simple appearances/mentions. They also lacked any sources to support their impact, and had done so for years despite a tag. Unless you can provide sources to support their impact, they should be deleted. (Hohum @) 09:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- I did begin to source the material. A "popular culture section" does not exist SOLELY to prove how the subject of the article had "a significant impact on popular culture," as per MOS:POPCULT but rather, as always, consists of a list of instances where the subject of the article has been mentioned IN pop culture whereby it is culturally relevant. This list is by no means exhaustive. Even if it were, the subject of the article is obscure enough that these mentions, seem to me, to make theme culturally significant. Again, before you, on your own, delete more than half the article, lets see what other impartial editors think. Crusadinggoonie (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Seven months passed without a reply. I gave ample time for a response. All of the mentions currently included are utterly trivial and fail MOS:POPCULT entirely, which I think you need to re-read. (Hohum @) 18:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- We may need to seek Wikipedia:Third opinion. (Hohum @) 18:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Seven months passed without a reply. I gave ample time for a response. All of the mentions currently included are utterly trivial and fail MOS:POPCULT entirely, which I think you need to re-read. (Hohum @) 18:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)