Talk:List of liqueur brands

External Links

This is a list of all the external links I'm removing from the main article. At the top for accessability Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 01:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Afrikoko [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Guavaberry [13] Polar Cranberry [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

Kindly restore the links removed in this edit, pending thoughtful, considered discussion. They serve as sources verifying the existence of these liqueurs, which don't yet have their own WP articles. Also, please post at the bottom of the discussion page, not the top. Badagnani (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I will not be restoring these links per WP:EL and the discussion below where only yourself has objected to the removal of links. If consensus can be reached agreeing to replace the links then they shall be. Until then I suggest you read WP:EL closely and take a look at WP:OWN -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kindly restore the links pending thoughtful, considered discussion (as requested by a long-time editor who well knows our policies). Badagnani (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the thoughtful, considered discussion below where consensus was meet to remove the links (4 to 1) I will not be restoring them -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Goldschlager

Goldschlager isn't herbal, it is cinnamon, right? Billy. Cinnamon is an herb, no?~CB

Please sign posts by adding four tildes after your post. Cinnamon is considered a spice (it is tree bark) but in the broadest sense could be considered an herb; herbal liqueurs often contain both herbs that come from leaves (such as mint), as well as roots (angelica), bark (cinnamon), berries (juniper), etc. They're still called "herbal." Badagnani 21:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically, cinnamon is listed as a spice. Herbs are leaves, spices are seeds or bark, and cinnamon is a bark. BiggKwell 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't have a category "spiceal liqueurs"; liqueurs made with various aromatic vegetal materials are still called herbals. Badagnani 21:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Absinthe

Absinthe is not a liqueur. It is a liquor, but does not have the sugar content to meet the industry-agreed standard for liqueur. Cordials and liqueurs must contain at least 2.5% sugar by weight. Which probably means a few other drinks should not be on this list. Alanmoss 14:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

dictionary.com lists it as an liqueur from 4 different reputable dictionarys. Unless you can provide a source to the contrary its a liqueur. Discordance 20:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

These days, 'liqueur' is also a trade description, and so defined in various regulations. Here's what the Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 says on the topic: "Liqueur: (1) A spirit drink, having a minimum sugar contents of 100 grams per litre [...]. (2) The name 'crème de' followed by the name of a fruit or the raw material used, excluding milk products, shall be reserved for liqueurs with a minimum sugar contents of 250 grams per litre [... followed by a note that Crème de Cassis must have at least 400 grams of sugar per litre. ..." There have been some later amendments for gentian and cherry liqueurs. [49]. (Also note that the grams per liter refers to sugar expressed as invert sugar.) Athulin (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm no booze expert, but I always thought that a liqueur was a liquor in which most to all of the flavor comes from the flavoring rather than the alcohol or otherwise. For example, flavored vodkas taste significantly like alcohol, and considerably less than that of the flavoring. A liqueur is so sweet that ALMOST ALWAYS, the alcohol is not detectable. Does that make sense to you? If it does, whether or not you are tasting the herbs rather than the alcohol (i wouldn't know, ive never had it)would determine whether or not it is a liqueur. --97.127.77.43 (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ouzo

Ouzo is not a liqueur. There is some confusion on online sources and dictionaries between liqueurs and liquors, especially non-European ones. (Dictionary.com calls it a liqueur in two of its sources and liquor in the other two. Drinksmixer.com says it is an "unsweetened greek liqueur".
The European Union Regulation (EC) 110/2008 is clear: liqueurs (Annex II and III, category 32) must have "a minimum sugar content" ... "100 grams per litre" in most cases. Ouzo is classified as "Distilled anis" (category 29) and it has no added sugar, as far as I know.
So, I believe it should be added in the note under Anise-flavored liqueurs in the exceptions and removed from the list of liqueurs.--Helentr (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion vote

All liqueur enthusiasts, please vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qi (spirit). Thank you, Badagnani 07:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cordials/liqueurs

Someone has just added that the fruit liqueurs are actually cordials. Is this accurate? Is there a question of terminology changing over time? And are fruit liqueurs liqueurs and also cordials at the same time? Do cordials have different sugar content? Expertise from knowledgeable editors will be appreciated here. Badagnani 12:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Originally, the term indicated a recommended medical usage -- i.e. for the heart or the stomach. Later, it seems to have become a general label for a refreshment or a pick-me-up. Strong coffee, for instance, was a cordial. Liqueurs were occasionally taken as cordials -- I have seen drinks we would call bitters mentioned being taken as cordials. I suspect from there it became a way to suggest a 'serious' purpose to a drink, instead of none at all. And from there it may have become a stamp of quality, and so got a life of its own. To some extent I believe modern usage may be a consequence of the seemingly general prohibition of home-distillation: home-produced liqueurs & cordials had to be produced by infusion/maceration/digestion/percolation or similar 'cold' method. (I think there is a term for these already -- ratafia -- but 'cordial' would probably be more acceptable.)

There may be differences in national usage: I see from books.google.com that Fanny Kemble noted the American use of 'cordial' for 'liqueur' in her Journal, along with other differences in drinking practices. But the cordial she notes (an indifferent sort of noyeau) is used as a refreshment after a ride or a drive, so perhaps it's just an idea of alcohol as a refreshment that she finds peculiar. Athulin (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Calvados

Calvados should be added as a fruit (apple cider based) French liqueur.--70.150.28.27 (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Calvados is not a liqueur, in that it has no added sugar. It is a type of fruit brandy made from apples. Badagnani (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Where should it go so ignorant souls can find it? --70.150.28.27 (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned at the Brandy article, specifically at Brandy#Fruit brandy. It's also in the template at the bottom of most alcoholic beverages pages. Badagnani (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Paan Liqueur

Paan Liqueur counts as a liqueur, doesn't it? Biologyiscool 05:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this betel leaf liqueur from Sikkim? Do you know about it? There isn't much online. If you know something please add it. Badagnani 06:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it this one? http://www.indolink.com/NRINews/paanLiqr.html It says there's no betel in it. Badagnani 06:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Whisky Liqueurs

I created and populated a section for whiskey based liqueurs, where the whisky itself is the predominate flavor. Some of these are not cloyingly sweet, yet identify themselves as "liqueur". I don't think the definition of liqueur should include "high sugar". In some cases, the residual sugar of the fruit or even the whisky itself used is enough to sweeten the drink. I'll try to go back and wikify some of the more popular entries in the category. Consuelo D'Guiche 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The modern trade definitions of the term insist on a minimum sugar contents, so 'high sugar' seems motivated. Indeed, sugar contents has been a kind of quality stamp, where Huiles and Cremes (as in Creme de Menthe) usually have a sugar content of around 35-40%. There is, however, a usage which suggests fortfication or possibly quality (cf. liqueur wine). I suspect that may be the origin of 'whisky liqueur' Athulin (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally, straight whisky or straight whiskey may not have anything added to it after distillation except water or coloring which is not supposed to have a flavor. If sugar is added to it after distillation then that makes it a liqueur. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Redlinks

Please do not remove redlinks without first going through each one here on "Discussion," carefully and thoroughly. As with anywhere else on Wikipedia, the redlinks serve an important function, to stimulate the creation of articles about individual liqueurs that we don't yet have. Badagnani (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The redlinks were removed in accordance with WP:V, a core policy of Wikipedia. Please don't re-add unverified information. This policy applies to every article on Wikipedia. Feel free to discuss the liqueurs carefully and thoroughly here if you have evidence they exist. Furthermore, lists should also contain context about their entries, which is highly lacking here. It would be a much better way to improve this list to flesh out what is already there, rather than add more unverified, unexplained information. Deiz talk 22:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is a simple misreading of our policy, which clearly does not prevent such redlinks, which in fact act to stimulate the creation of new articles on these subjects. Certainly we all wish to expand our encyclopedia rather than deplete it for our users. Adding external links as references next to each redlinks would serve as a proof that each is an actual extant liqueur, so adding such links this may be a prudent solution for now, which would also assist in the creation of new articles for each liqueur. Badagnani (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A close perusal of about 50 of the redlinks turns up links for each, none being a fradulently added liqueur, and all being notable. This can serve as a start to create all those articles. We'll do that, but keep in mind that at WP there is no deadline. Let's all work together to create these articles, as no single person can make them all on his or her own. Badagnani (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but it is an absolutely correct reading of the policy - an uncited redlink is unverified information, and can be removed. In the context of an article, redlinks may be acceptable as the context around them can indicate some form of notability, but in a bare list it is absolutely within policy to remove redlinks. There is no exception or special dispensation for redlinks because they might encourage creation of articles. I appreciate you're doing good work here and will let you get on with it for now, but be assured I will continue to remove unverified information per policy as appropriate. Deiz talk 00:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sure it's a misreading of the policy, in light of the fact that each liqueur (many of which are highly notable, yet just don't yet have their own WP article) is being verified, slowly but surely. Any that prove to be spurious will be removed from the article. We need to be methodical and thorough about this, to ensure that we have the best, most thorough, and scrupulously verified article on this subject anywhere. Badagnani (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be blunt, but what part of "Material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source" is unclear? A challenged, uncited redlink falls very squarely within this definition. I can assure you there is no misreading here, at least on my part. Deiz talk 02:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Still a lot of redlinked and unverified information here.. absent of verification, the next cleanup will be strictly enforced per WP:V. Deiz talk 02:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Please do not edit in a threatening manner. That is not what our project is about. We'll go through them one by one. Whichever liqueur you believe to be spurious, we'll take a look at and create articles for them. This is all about building content, and we can and should work together to do so, not threaten one another. Thank you for your consideration, Badagnani (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Policies are there for a reason - enforcing them is not threatening, and it is exactly in line with how and why the project works the way it does. This is clear cut - no article or verificiation = not in line with policy. If you want to create articles, go ahead. But don't take it personally if unverified content is removed according to policy after ample prior warning (see timestamps on comments above). If you are planning a follow-up comment which, once again, puts out a touchy-feely "oh but we will create these articles! we will!" reason to ignore policy, please don't bother. What would be really encouraging is something that shows you actually understand WP:V, which in light of your comments thus far appears to be a forlorn hope. Deiz talk 03:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have asked you kindly not to edit in a threatening (and now, it appears, unnecessarily ascerbically sarcastic) manner, but instead to edit in a collaborative manner, identifying which links are believed to be spurious, then researching and solving any such problems. Instead, more threats are issued. I will ask again: please do not edit in a threatening manner, but instead aim for a collaborative manner, placing our users first and foremost, and using one's time and effort to actually build our project by actually identifying problematic content and working together to improve it, rather than threaten other editors. Thank you again for this consideration, Badagnani (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Any item in this (or any) list which is non/redlinked and not verified by a reliable, external source is anti-policy. If that's what you mean by "spurious", there is your answer. If you're taking any of this personally, I would point out that you do not own this or any other article, and a stated intention to apply policy to an article is absolutely acceptable, particularly when, as in this case, plenty of time has been allowed for the article to be worked on after the problem was first noted. My only concern - and certainly not the basis of any threat - with you here has been your unwillingness to acknowledge the mere existence of WP:V, let alone its crucial importance to Wikipedia. That, to me, is disappointing in an editor who otherwise deigns to know what is best for the encylopedia and its readers. Deiz talk 05:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank you for moderating your tone. As mentioned earlier, I have checked a great number of the redlinks and have found them to be actual notable liqueurs. They are simply in need of articles. Wikipedia is built brick by brick, in an inexorable, collaborative fashion, and liqueur articles are no different--we shall work together to provide the best, most comprehensive content about liqueurs available in the English language on the Internet. Badagnani (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of your wikiphilosophy, and within the rules I fully agree. However, with regard to removing unverified content, I'm still amazed by your refusal to acknowledge the existence of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Have you read it? Do you just flat out disagree with it? I'd really like to know. Deiz talk 11:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you only respond to perceived threats and ascerbic sarcasm, rather than actual questions about Wikipedia policy. Deiz talk 00:00, 24 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) 13:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Frangelico.jpg

The image File:Frangelico.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Cherry is a fruit not a berry

cherry is not a berry but a fruit so why is it under the berry section? bmenn (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I will move it. --kupirijo (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Reversions

Hi. I've noticed that two editors are engaged in a bit of an edit war here. Can I ask that User:Badagnani and User:Ronz please explain here why their version is better? It's for the benefit of anyone reading the talk page, so we know what's going on. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message; the edits made to this page seem similar to those made by this editor over the past few days at nearly ten other pages I've worked on extensively (content and/or links removed without prior discussion, or pages proposed for deletion). In this case, some of the wikilinks are redlinks; those redlinks are there to spur the creation of actual WP articles on individual liqueurs that don't already have their own articles. Where they are redlinks, the EL serve as placeholders, to assist future editors in creating WP articles on those liqueurs with not-yet-created WP articles. In every case, it's reasonable, when a long-time WP editor requests it, that such large-scale removals be discussed with deliberateness and thoughtfulness prior to the deletions, so we may work together in a collaborative manner. Badagnani (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

First sentence: irrelevant. I don't care if he led the Holocaust; I'm interested in liqueurs, and in links. Last sentence: same. We all know the policies; don't repeat them to us as if we're babies. People hate being talked to that way, and you won't get far with people by doing it.

Now... are you aware that we generally avoid external links in the body of articles? I'm not saying there's a rule about that. I'm asking whether you're aware of that convention. Are you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It will be possible to discuss further if you would kindly moderate your tone. I don't understand why you need to refer to the Holocaust, in which many of my relatives perished, or to babies. The request that large-scale removals be proposed and discussed at "Discussion" when requested by a long-time editor is a reasonable one. To answer your question, I am very familiar with Wikipedia since I am a long-time editor. Certainly links can be converted to references, but this takes time. We can work together to do that. Badagnani (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Badagnani, I don't mean to offend you. What I'm really saying is that it is essential to separate the issue of the person from the issue of the edits. When I ask you why your edit is good, and you reply that someone has been following you, don't you see that you're not answering the question? If that is how you reply, you will find it very difficult to win support.

Please trust me that the best way to deal with behavior issues is one edit at a time, by focusing on article content. I'm trying to persuade you to talk in a focused way about one edit at a time, because it works.

Now, is there any way you can agree to stop adding external links in the bodies of articles just for a little while so we can talk about it? Can you please do that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I did answer your very first question, thoroughly, in my first reply to you, explaining why the removed links were valuable. You severely criticized my response as a lecture, which was not meant as such; I simply answered a question of why the removed content was valuable to the article. The removed content were references, not external links--though formatted in the "old style" rather than the more cumbersome "reflist" format. They serve simply as proof that such a liqueur exists, to assist future editors in creating articles about these liqueurs. When adding external links, I add them under the "External links" section. Badagnani (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's something we can talk about. It's not clear to me that there is consensus for adding links in that manner, so let's establish that there really is, okay? How can we do that?

    As for the lecture... it's stuff you really should know. I'm the guy putting in a lot of effort to make your life easier here.

    Again, how are we going to establish that there's consensus for those links? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

reply from Ronz

My edit summaries are pretty clear:

• 18:11, 13 February 2009 (linkfarm - Links used only as examples should be removed per WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK)
• 20:56, 25 March 2009 (Undid revision 279640614 by Badagnani (talk) suggest review of WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOTLINK)

They are not reliable sources. They fit the description of WP:SPAM.

I've walked Badagnani through the applicable policies and guidelines for such situations before, including RfC's and WP:RSN. I suggest further discussion be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani‎. --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ronz, thank you. I'm not asking for Badagnani's benefit, nor for my own, but for everyone who will come to this page later, and want to know why such-and-such decision was made. The best thing we can do for those people is to actually talk about the edits, and the reasons for them.

It is also the case that the best way to deal with tendentious editors is by talking about the edits, and the reasons for them. Thanks for dropping by the talk page to comment. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Removals of links

Removals of sources for liqueurs that are currently redlinks here; please undo as these are references that assist and spur future editors in creating articles on these individual liqueurs that don't yet have their own WP articles. Badagnani (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait - what do we know about the consensus on this question? I agree that the links may be useful, but they might not all be appropriate. Let's slow down and talk about it. How do we know there's consensus? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've worked hard, along with many other editors, to gradually build this article, I believe over a period of years. If there is a plan to remove a great deal from the article, such a plan should be presented for consensus here prior to such a removal (as I would do if I were to have such a plan, out of respect for other editors). Regarding the links that were removed without such consensus, as with any other WP article, we strive to have the best-sourced and most encyclopedic article possible. Those references serve as proof and references verifying the existence of these liqueurs, as well as to spur the creation of WP articles for these individual liqueurs. Badagnani (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an answer to the question I asked... what is it that lets you know there is a consensus to include links to commercial sites in this article? I know that you find them to be useful, to let people know and to spur the creation of further articles. My question is: how do you know there's consensus support for that approach to linking?

I agree that major changes should be discussed, but the format by which that happens is WP:BRD. The upshot is that, once one reversion happens, everyone has to go to the talk page, and any edits made after that are escalatory, and unproductive. Imagine each reversion costs you a pint of blood - how good is a revert war then? I never make the same edit twice, and as soon as there's a question, I take it to the talk page. That's the only way.

So.... what do you think about consensus to include links to commercial sites in this article. Is there one? Ronz brings up policy objections above. How do you answer those? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is excellent, but should occur prior to such large-scale deletions, not after. Let's start over, showing good faith by restoring, then discussing. As stated above, we aim to be as encyclopedic as well-sourced as possible, and removing the only links showing the existence of the liqueurs (the best available, as I combed the Internet with great assiduousness to find them) does not assist in this aim. Links "to be avoided" generally are avoided by long-time editors such as myself, except where they are the best links available for a given item. Further, links "to be avoided" are links "to be avoided," not links "to be removed immediately without prior discussion, even when requested to do so by another long-time editor." Although BRD may be an excellent tool, in this case it is not helpful, as a long-time editor has requested such discussion, out of great sincerity. Badagnani (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. We can't do that. If you want to hold the discussion hostage to having the edit reverted, then you'll lose. I didn't make the rule, and it applies to everyone, even-handedly. Will you please address the question of whether there is consensus to use external links in the body of this article in the way you are doing? Please do answer.

You say "a long-time editor has requested such discussion." Well, I'm trying to discuss with you. Is there consensus for those links? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have answered your question with great seriousness and thoroughness, just above, and above that, in fact several times. Why would you imply that I have not? It is eminently reasonable for a long-time editor to ask for the courtesy of prior discussion when making huge removals to a given page, and your implication that I am attempting to "hold someone hostage" is highly offensive. Our content and users are of paramount importance and I do not feel it is unreasonable to ask for deliberation prior to the removal of large numbers of references. Wikipedia puts a premium on having the best-sourced articles possible, and the removal of sources (in this case the best sources available, as I looked long and hard for the ones that were removed) does not enhance this. Consensus for the removal of sources should be generated before such removals are made, when and where requested by long-time editors. Badagnani (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen you say anything about consensus. You've talked about how useful the links are, and I agree. You've talked about how they can assist in the creation of future articles, and I agree. You're talked a whole lot about how valuable and productive you are, and I'll draw my own conclusions on that point. I thank you for trusting me to do that. You've talked a lot about how unfairly you're being treated, and I'll draw my own conclusions on that point. You have yet to type one word about how you know there is consensus for those external links in this article.

Oh, and there's no rush. Wikipedia is not written to a deadline, and nobody is hurt by not knowing about the newest Cadbury liqueur. Thank you for understanding that I can judge the urgency of an edit.

As for putting a premium on high-quality links, Wikipedia also puts a premium on not being a vehicle of promotion for non-notable products, and Wikipedia puts a premium on keeping external links out of our articles. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a pattern here, Badagnani: It's always the same basic discussion about discussing bold edits first and requesting this discussion that you don't properly participate in. What would Wikipedia be if every little edit was to be discussed thoroughly before it was made or else it would immediately reverted without any proper reason? Frankly, it would be a big mess if everyone were to follow this "policy" of yours. I have recommended you to read WP:DRNC, WP:BOLD, and WP:BRD countless times, to no avail. Like GTBacchus said above, you haven't proven anything about the "consensus" you frequently reference in order to back up your edits. I'm frequently confused by those statements of yours. I'll also reiterate these few words from GTBacchus: Nobody is hurt by not knowing about the newest Cadbury liqueur. Eugene2x►^talk 00:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on this matter is as follows: I agree with Eugene2x and GTBacchus basically. The links have been removed and should stay that way. If you feel that this was not the right thing to do then a discussion should have been started and, if consensus for it had been reached, added back in. The edits by GTB and other such editors removing the links should not have been reverted. Remember WP:OWN, it is not your decision which version is the 'proper one' until consensus is reached otherwise. The contributions by other editors are just as important as yours and must be treated as such. I also don't think the links should be removed outright, as Badagnani stated, they are important to helping redlinks become blue. In my opinion the links should be removed from the article page and copied over into the talk page for interested editors to pursue. -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, such would be a compromise and show that we are all working together, hard, to really improve this article. Moving sources for redlinks here, which I would not support, would nevertheless serve essentially the same purpose and be far superior in terms of our collaborative spirit than a "drive-by" blanking of the links, then moving on to some other page. Let's wait for some more responses and see what the consensus develops to be. I do believe that all of us (or most of us?) do wish to have the best, most comprehensive, thorough, and encyclopedic article on this topic anywhere on the Internet, and this article is developing to be such. Let's remain positive and work together to do that. Badagnani (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The links are on this talk page, right up at the top. Therefore, anyone wishing to research and write articles about these other liqueurs can do so, without our having to violate our usual rule about not including commercial links in articles. Remember that we generally do not want commercial links in our articles. If there is a good way to use them without linking to sites whose primary purpose is to sell products, then that would be super. Remember that Wikipedia is based on independent sources. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a misreading of our guideline. We always strive to use the best links possible, and in fact do. With care and discussion, if superior links to the individual liqueurs may be found, that would be great. However, pending such discussion such links serve as the best links possible (with a lot of effort expended in locating them), showing the existence of these liqueur and spurring editors and providing a source to assist in the creation of new articles for the liqueurs that are still redlinks. This allows us to create the most thorough, encyclopedic, and best-sourced article on this subject, anywhere on the Internet (or off the Internet, for that matter). All that is requested is carefuly, thoughtful, and deliberate discussion of the removed references prior to their wholesale removal from the article. Yes, it does take time, but taking the time to take such time is a very important part of our fundamentally collaborative process. Badagnani (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm reading the guideline correctly. Consensus has roundly rejected the argument that you are making now. The need to document the existence of individual liqueur brands is far outweighed by the need to avoid links to commercial sites in our articles.

It doesn't matter how much effort you expended finding them, because they're inappropriate, by long-standing consensus. If they are not inappropriate, then you will find it very easy to find many other Wikipedians who agree with you. Pending the location of such Wikipedians, the consensus is clear to exclude commercial links, per our usual policy.

Consensus is not needed for exclusion of links. Consensus is need for inclusion of links. The burden is on you to show that these links are desired by the community. Trotting out the same tired argument ("We strive for the best links possible") is not convincing any one, and no amount of repetition will change that. You have to deal with the fact that this encyclopedia has got a consensus agreement not to link to commercial sites from our articles. If you want things to be different, build a consensus. That's gonna take waaaaaay better arguments than you're offering. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's much better, and shows excellent faith, to actually take the time to go through each link and try to find a better one for each. If the one we had was the best one (serving as a reference for those redlinked liqueurs), they are suitable under the guideline. We must be reasonable in everything we do at WP. Badagnani (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have to be reasonable. It is reasonable to follow our usual policy.

If you wish to be reasonable, you will either: find other Wikipedians who agree with you, or else admit that you can not. Which is it to be?

Your argument that "commercial links are better than nothing" is rejected by broad consensus. If a commercial link is all we have, then it is better to have nothing. Build new consensus, or else live with the existing one. Which is it to be? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you what you can do with those links. Follow the redlink to the liqueur, and then click over to the discussion tab. Post the link there, with a note that it's there to help any editor who comes along in the future and wants to write the article. That way, search engines won't see the links, so we won't be advertising for these companies. The link will only ever be seen by someone trying to research a serious article. That sounds ideal to me; what do you think? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Badagnani, I'm more patient that you are, and you'll get bored of this before I do. If you want to do the smart thing, stop trying to convince me, and start trying to convince others. That means get off this talk page and find them, and bring them here. Without that, you'll never get what you want here. I'm very, very patient. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Our fundamentally collaborative process, utilizing deliberation and serious discussion between interested editors, is important enough to request that it be utilized, particularly when requested by long-time editors. In this case, prior to removal of references (which at the time they were added were the best available), they should be discussed with care at "Discussion." This does take time, but it's well worth it, as our end result is something we all desire: having the best, most thorough and encyclopedic article on this subject. Badagnani (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Those weren't references; they were marketing. They were not the "best available references"; they were spam. We don't want them.

You can keep repeating yourself, but it will never work. Go find people who agree with you. You can't, can you? You've brought nothing to the discussion but repetition. You're advancing no arguments, and convincing no one. Why do you think this will work? Is this how you wish to spend your time on Earth? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I never add spam to Wikipedia, ever. They were the best links available. When dealing with alcoholic beverages, there is frequently not a great variety of book, magazine, and newspaper sources available, thus we have to rely on Internet sources. In order to produce the best, most thorough and encyclopedic articles possible (one of the main aims of our project), we do use the best sources available. In order not to change the subject, however, the request that each source be discussed with care and seriousness at "Discussion" prior to removal was the original point of this discussion. We must be reasonable in everything we do, and edit with great seriousness, as our project benefits thousands of people around the globe. Requesting such discussion is eminently reasonable. Finally, it would be helpful to this discussion if you could please moderate your tone. Badagnani (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, you think that repetition will work. It will not. Those links are spam, whether you can see that or not. We do not link to commercial sites. I note that you are utterly unable to find anyone to agree with, and apparently unwilling to try. Is this fun to you?

If you took all the energy you're spending here, and used it to find better links.... that would be very, very smart. Are you going to do it, or are you going to repeat yourself here again? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have never added spam to Wikipedia. Our project has the highest standards and we do not allow such. Insinuating that I do is very offensive to me as an editor and as a person (I am an editor and human being of good faith), and I would appreciate it, now, if you would strike the comments where you state that I do. To answer your question, editing Wikipedia, and in particular building, brick by brick, articles from nothing to the best, most thorough and encyclopedic articles possible (I have done this for 1000+ articles I myself began, plus thousands more I did not begin but contributed to over a period of years) is fun, but is also a lot of work. It takes collaboration at "Discussion" and careful teamwork between editors, working out differences by hammering out consensus. When consensus is imposed by force rather than careful, collegial discussion, it has the effect of hampering our project's effort in this regard. Badagnani (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been adding spam, quite unintentionally, I'm sure. I don't thing you find it to be spam, and I would question your good faith. I only question your judgment. You seem to think that repeating yourself here will make something happen. It won't. You think that those links aren't spam; you're wrong. They are.

As for hammering consensus, it has been hammered out, and you're choosing to defiantly ignore it, as if that will make it go away. It will not. There is a broad consensus to avoid commercial links such as those you were adding. Please change this consensus before attempting to edit against it. I thank you for understanding that we will not maintain an article in a state contrary to policy simply because you feel slighted. Sorry. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, please strike your comments stating that I am a spammer. I am not. I add only the best links that can be found as references, in this case verifying a liqueur's existence. Where books or other non-Internet print sources can be found, they are added. Your reading of the guideline is simply incorrect; we must be reasonable in everything we do, and massively removing references that are the best available prior to careful discussion goes counter to our aim of creating the most thorough and encyclopedic articles possible. This aspect is not about being slighted, but about placing our content, and, hence, our users who utilize it, foremost in our minds. Badagnani (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I never called you a spammer and I never will call you that. I said that the links you inserted are spam, but that you don't realize it. You're not a spammer; you're just naïve, which is certainly no crime. If my reading of the guideline is incorrect, then you will have no problem finding other people to say so, too. I'm waiting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If wishing and doing one's best to provide for our users the most thorough and best-sourced article on the subject of "List of liqueurs" (a subject for which the existence of many liqueurs are documented mostly on the types of websites that were removed without prior comment) is naive, I am that. Badagnani (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem unwilling or unable to solicit opinions from elsewhere on Wikipedia, I've done it for you. Please see WT:EL#Reality check, thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory. It is wholly inappropriate to provide a long list of links to commercial sites instead of wikilinks to articles. This is standard across countless auricles. Whenever anyone tries to provide external links in the body it is soon reverted. "List of" pages are always problematic, as they are at odds with how we normally do things. If you want sources, then find a reliable source listing liqueurs and link to that, but don't link to marketing sites. Again, this is never accepted on Wikipedia, and I'm surprised anyone who has been on Wikipedia for a while doesn't already know what a major violation this is. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You are quite correct in stating that Wikipedia is not a Web directory. It is very important that it not be. However, there is no such rule saying "no commercial links," the rule states that such links are "to be avoided. In fact, I do avoid them, at all costs, except when links of a commercial nature are unavoidable in order to have the most thorough and encyclopedic article on a given subject. This is usually the case for consumer products (including commercial foods and beverages), popular culture products, musical groups, etc., which are not well documented in print media but for which there are numerous Internet sources. We just have to be reasonable and judicious in our use of external links as references, and to evaluate each case on an individual basis, using reasonableness and thoughtfulness in our discussions regarding the merits of each link. What more (or less) could we, as long-time editors ask of our colleagues than careful discussion regarding the use of such links? Badagnani (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:GAME much? The general idea that the policy gives is basically "no spam, no commercial links." Trying to slide past it by discovering a logical fallacy in the policy does little, if anything to help. We don't need ads and cruft spamming up the page. Now instead of this constant bickering against general consensus so you can have it your way, I suggest you stick to what's tried and true. Eugene2x►^talk 19:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If a commercial link is truly the best link available, then we use no link. This is long-standing policy. I don't know why Badagnani keeps asking for careful discussion, because we're clearly having it, right now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is simply your own misreading of a guideline. Again, I see no response on your part to the policy issue in the comment just above. Badagnani (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what, you think we are ALL misreading the guideline (the multiple people who commented here, the people who edited the article against your edits, the people who commented on the External links talk page) and that only you are capable of interpreting the rules? Nonsense. At this point multiple people have told you you're wrong so you have to accept that or go find editors who actually agree with you. DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can tell my that my reading of the guideline is wrong, and I can tell you that yours is wrong. How do we decide who's right?

Please do let me know what I haven't replied to. I'm certainly hoping to address all of your points, carefully and seriously. -GTBacchus^(talk)

First, please sign your post with ~~~~, second, "How do we decided who's right?" Simple - Consensus. It's against you with every other editor agreeing the other opinion is right. Ergo, we are right and you are not. End of -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That was me. Sorry for forgetting the signature. Badagnani has yet to ask the question, "How do we decide who's right?" He seems to be stuck in the "I'm right and everyone else is wrong," mode. Badagnani, before you get offended, give me one reason to believe otherwise. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The principles involved

I think I can summarize the principles involved in this discussion. On the one hand, we want to provide thorough, quality, well-documented information. On the other hand, we don't want to be a web directory, nor a white pages, and we don't want to point people to sites selling products. The question is which of these two concerns outweighs the other on this particular article.

Is that an accurate summary of what's going on? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't wish Wikipedia to be any of the latter, and would never edit Wikipedia in such a manner. Badagnani (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I know Badagnani, and I'm not accusing you of wanting that. I just want to be sure we're asking the right questions. Would you agree that the principles I've outlined really are the substance of our disagreement, or have I failed to put my finger on it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that the primary argument for keeping the external links in the article is to facilitate creation of the redlinked entries? Note to self: use shorter words. If so, I can't support including them. Although Wikipedia is a work in progress, articles should never contain "working notes" or other material that would never be in a finished article. (Tags are an exception -- an exception I personally dislike, but so be it.)

I don't expect that this list, in its most mature form, will ever include links to commercial sites for individual liqueurs. Besides, commercial sites aren't usable for establishing notability, so, frankly, I don't see how including such links will help anyone to create articles that belong on Wikipedia. We don't need articles like this.--Father Goose (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I do think, and I have suggested to Badagnani, that it would be very appropriate to put links on talk pages of potential articles, so that future researchers will have easy access to them. Unless I've missed it, he hasn't commented on that possibility. Badagnani, please correct me if I'm wrong about that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not; it's not the primary reason, it's one reason. Pending the creation of WP articles, the external links serve as references verifying the liqueur's existence, its nation of production, and its ingredients. I believe I have enumerated these reasons above, at least once. Badagnani (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm splitting my suggestions that were here (at 01:40, 31 March 2009), into a new thread below at #Suggestions. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Commercial Link Principle

I would like to be certain that I'm not mis-stating your position, Badagnani, so I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong. According to your arguments:

If there is a consumer product that exists, and the only link we can find verifying its existence and properties is a commercial link, then we should include that link, as the best reference available to document that consumer product.

Badagnani, is that an accurate presentation of your position? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC) (I would appreciate if others refrain from posting directly below this question, because I want to make sure I get an answer from Badagnani himself. Thanks.)

I'm sure Badagnani will sign his post wherever it goes. Bongomatic 02:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I made that request out of experience. Many people will refrain from answering questions they don't want to answer when conversation seems to have moved past it. The pregnant silence is a powerful thing, when it can be maintained. I asked too much, in this case. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me he already answered this. Quote: Pending the creation of WP articles, the external links serve as references verifying the liqueur's existence, it's nation of production, and its ingredients. Considering how many articles he's created, I think the validity of his approach is clear. Your comments GT seem to border on trolling. Are you posting here in a useful capacity and in order to improve the encyclopedia? Because I'm having trouble detecting the usefulness of your comment. Perhaps it should be removed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, hi. My comments here have to do with the links that Badagnani has been inserting into this article. He came to me complaining that people were following him around and reverting his good work. I came here, as one of the places he requested I help, and I saw the edit in dispute. I asked Badagnani, "How do you know there is consensus for this edit."

I supposed I would receive a reply along the lines of, "I had a discussion on such-and-such page, and here's a link". Instead, Badagnani argued that his edit was clearly good, and those reverting it were clearly harassing him. I asked again how we knew the edit had consensus support, and... it's been 20 rounds now. Badagnani continues to insist that his edit is supported by policy, although nobody has agreed with his reading of policy. He continues to tell me that my reading of the guideline is incorrect, but he refuses to point to any kind of consensus support of his reading.

My posting here is entirely directed to determining whether Badagnani's edit is supported by consensus and policy, or not. It has been understanding for some years that the argument outlined above is absolutely contrary to our purposes, and that it is part of Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopedia to make sure we do not host links that serve only to document the existence of consumer products. If anyone can show me that the consensus is against me on this matter, I will drop it like a bad habit, and you'll never hear from me again.

So far, all that's happened is that Badagnani has continued to argue that it's okay to link to commercial sites when nothing better is available. I understand this to be contrary to our mission, and that is what I'm posting about here. I am trying to establish whether or not Wikipedians want to let this article be host to commercial links. The evidence so far seems to indicate that most Wikipedians oppose such linking, but Badagnani keeps arguing here, so I keep answering him.

If I'm doing something wrong here, then I do hope someone will tell me what I'm doing wrong, and how I can do my work here better. I'm always open to input. If you think I'm out of line, I do hope you will open an RfC on my conduct. I would welcome any and all feedback. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your section title is unnecessarily provocative and your tone comes across as mocking. I suggest this entire section be removed and that we focus on the issue at hand: what citations are appropriate for this article? Can commercial sites be included with redlinks "as references verifying the liqueur's existence, it's nation of production, and its ingredients" or are these inappropriate? Editor Quiddity has already addressed this issue above, with a compromise position of sorts that I thought seemed reasonable and worth following up. I would request that we remove this section, or at least condense it, and stick to the issue at hand without targeting any particular editor or proposing any new "doctrines". It seems we have a difference of opinion on how best to apply various guidelines to this circumstance and I think that's the best focus for discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to focus on the issue of whether commercial sites can be included with redlinks "as reference verifying the liqueur's existence, its nation of production, and its ingredients." My position is that a broad consensus for years has held that, no, we don't do that. Several editors have responded to this issue by saying, "no, we don't do that." I've asked the question, and I've tried to ask it neutrally, at WT:EL, WT:RS, Wikipedia talk:Lists, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. The response has been an almost unanimous "no."

Now, one editor has suggested that some of those links might be used in footnotes, if we can be certain that they are providing us with useful information. I am absolutely willing to entertain that possibility, and I am very interested in what the community at large thinks. I do hope you'll agree that the community's opinion is important. I would like to know, because if the community is in favor of using commercial links in this way, I would like to know it, so I can help enforce consensus effectively.

Are you, ChildofMidnight, willing to help determine what the community thinks about this question? Every time I've asked Badagnani if he's willing to help me with that, he has declined to do so, leaning instead on the strength of his argument, with no appeal to consensus agreement. When I've brought up the fact that he doesn't seem to have consensus support, he repeats that he is a very valuable editor, and that his edit is very useful - utterly dodging the question, "where is the consensus of editors who agrees with adding these links?" This consensus cannot be found, apparently.

I am at a loss to see how Badagnani believes that his edit has the support of the community. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, ChildofMidnight, I wonder about your position on the following question: If editor A adds content, and then editor B removes it, based on their understanding of our rules, is the burden on editor B to show that the material was inappropriate, or is the burden on editor A to show that the material was appropriate. What do you think, or can the question not be answered in the general case? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are my responses. 1) You continue to focus on one editor, but already another editor has weighed in with an opinion that in this circumstance commercial sites may be useful to include in some fashion. By my count that makes two editors who have opined that in this case some of those links may be worth including. If you disagree, perhaps it would be best to respond to their comments, rather than starting a provocative new thread that isn't directly relevant to the situation and that ignores their input. This strikes me as being disruptive, as I've indicated, and I'd much prefer to stick to a focused discussion on the article with all editors who want to offer their input on the contents and citations, rather than get distracted with the personalities and broader issues (which are outside the scope of this article talk page). 2) There are policies and guidelines, and then there are the particulars of how these guidelines are applied. Certainly there is subjectivity in the application of the rules, otherwise we could simply have robots determine AfD outcomes and edit disputes. Furthermore, the guidelines are guidelines and not absolutes and they aren't mutually exclusive, but leave room for interpretation and in some cases they conflict in their application. 3) I can't answer your question in the general case. But the outcome of all disputes seems to rely more on majority rule than derive solely from policy (although the majority usually seems to get things right and to abide policies generally, at least eventually which is I think rather amazing). This majority rule sometimes serves the encyclopedia well and sometimes doesn't, depending on where you're sitting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, thank you for this thoughtful reply. I'll use your numbering to respond.

(1) My focus on one editor comes from this: Badagnani has been stating a principle that I've never heard anyone else state. The only person who can truly verify whether I'm stating Badagnani's argument correctly is Badagnani. He's asked me not to post to his talk page, so this seems to be the place to do it. Regarding the other editor who has posted here, I'm about to reply to them, after I finish typing this reply to you.

(2) I agree with everything in your point #2, and I have always thought that. I don't see how that's an argument against anything I'm saying or doing. I'm really just suggesting that we find out whether the community agrees that commercial links verifying the existence of products are better than nothing. Whatever the community decides, I would never consider applying it robotically, or without regard for particular details. In this particular case, I'd say we're dealing with a conflict between our policy to inform as well as we can, and our policy to avoid commercial or promotional links, as best we can. These are both important policies, and how to weigh them properly against each other is an important question.

(3) As far as "majority rule", I hope that's never how we decide things. I know that in AfD it often looks a lot like majority rule, but it regularly happens that actions are taken despite majority opposition that end up being good decisions.

I hope I have addressed your points here. Thanks for listening. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would someone make a subject heading like that? Badagnani (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm trying to figure out where you think the lines are. I want to know whether you would agree, in the general case, that it's best to link to a commercial website, if that's all that's available. I want to know if this is truly your position so that we can ask the question of the community with clarity and seriousness. I call it the "Badagnani doctrine" because you are the first editor I've ever known to take such a position. It is, in my experience, original to you; hence, "the Badagnani Doctrine". Is it, in truth, your position, or have I mistaken you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

CoM made this comment in response to something above without the intercession of a subject heading—inserting such a heading against the wishes of CoM is a deliberate mischaracterization (whether slight or not—not for us to judge) of his comment. Bongomatic 02:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The heading is offensive, and my position has been made clear above, in any case. Badagnani (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it's clear to you. If your position were entirely clear to me, I wouldn't be seeking clarification. I want to state your position neutrally, accurately, and succinctly, so that we can find out what other people think of it. Before attempting to state your position to others, I think it's fair to get your confirmation that it really is your position. This is because I do not wish to misrepresent you.

Does that seem reasonable to you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I do sympathise with GTBacchus' intent to seek an understanding of Badagnani's position, but the word doctrine was perhaps not the best choice... it's an awkward word with connotations that may wildly differ depending on the reader.
Also, in glancing through the discussion above, I do see that (up at the beginning of #Reversions) Badagnani seems to have had his very first attempt to explain his position clearly and thoroughly, as requested, result in a less-than-friendly reply. (Though I realize that there is some sort of history and/or context behind GTBacchus' character of response, based upon whatever "edit war" he was witnessing (as he states). And I really did only "glance through"; no time to do more than that. But that was what I saw first.)
If I were in Badagnani's shoes, I might feel that this last section was an attempt to "pin me to the wall with my own words" (that's the connotations I would take from the heading and premise). However, looking a little further, I see at Wikipedia talk:RS#List of liqueurs that GTBacchus stated the case very clearly and neutrally. (I also see that I have repeated some of WhatamIdoing's suggestions)
Now, personally, I would rather this discussion devolve into a discussion of meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, as I think those sorts of meta-descriptions are so handy for understanding each other. For example: Many of the folks who populate WT:EL favour immediatism and exclusionism and related philosophies. They keep our Wiki clean, but aggravate many contributors, and tend to err on the side of overcleaning (subjectively speaking). Everybody brings their own subjective opinion on what is acceptable now, and what is the "end goal" for the scope of a "completed Wikipedia". I like to think that inclusionism and eventualism got us to where we are today, and that (except for BLPs and hundreds of other exceptions (!)) they are the philosophies that will keep us moving in the right directions. Generally... Ya know. Not to get all abstract or anything... Now, see below for a more positive attempt from me... -- Quiddity (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There's just one point in here to which I want to reply. It's far off-topic, I'm sure, but you're right that my first response to Badagnani on this page was impolite. I'd like to provide some context for that, not to excuse my rash words, but in order to make a small point about human nature. Badagnani came to me, asking for help. He was being harassed, and he wanted me to help stop the harassment. I replied that I was willing to help, and I requested, in some detail, that we do it as a content dispute, and not as a behavior dispute. I tried to make it clear, in three posts to Badanani before I posted at this talk page (1, 2, 3) that it was important to me that he refrain from talking about the editors, and limit his comments to talking about the edits. I tried to make it clear that such was a condition to my helping. Then, when I asked the question on this talk page, his immediate reply was to tell me that "the edits made to this page seem similar to those made by this editor over the past few days at nearly ten other pages I've worked on extensively".

Now, I know what's it's like to be frustrated, but I'll say this much: If you ask someone for help, and then they ask you to do something, then it's not a very good idea to immediately turn around and do the opposite of what they requested. It's rather likely to irritate the person, and make them less inclined to help you. I practically begged Badagnani for a focused discussion of edits, with no reference to personalities, and the very next thing he did was post about personalities.

I've learned from this experience that I need to be much more explicitly clear about the conditions that I set for helping someone out in a dispute, which I am sometimes asked to do. I'm simply not an admin who will play policeman with any but the most blatant vandals, and I try to make this clear to people who ask me to "enforce" behavior policies. I think that pursuing behavior issues purely in terms of behavior is folly, and I'm going to be much more up-front about that in the future. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Splitting my suggestions into a new thread.

As I said elsewhere:

According to WP:EL, there should not be any direct external links within the text of an article.

However, adding them as ref'd footnotes should be a workable compromise (as long as actual information, such as ingredients, can be found at the link - purely commercial pages without significant detail would not be helpful (to future article development or to current readers)).

To which I will add:

When in doubt, consult the featured pages: Wikipedia:Featured lists. A close example (stylistically, and contextually) might be something like List of vegetable oils. Look to that for guidance and inspiration. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it only makes sense to add links to pages that offer significant information. I also agree that adding the links as footnotes is better. It's just a matter of putting "<ref>[" and "]</ref>" around them, instead of "[" and "]". I'm not sure that commercial sites would be acceptable even if they provide enough information to verify the existence and ingredients. I think I know what the community consensus is on this matter, but this particular dispute has called that into question, so I'm keen to find out whether or not it's cool to use a commercial link as the only verification of some fact. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There doesn't seem to be any relevant mention in any of the guidelines/policies. I think the WP:RS/N is the next logical step. I would suggest that a few distinct questions need to be answered: 1) Are the official sites acceptable as a reference, eg liviko? 2) Are commercial retailers acceptable if nothing else can be found, eg tossaint? 3) Do they have other suggestions for how to verify the existence of an item in a list? (These questions could probably be phrased better than my attempt ;) Any decision could have implications for the List of vegetable oils, too (it was promoted to FeaturedList in 2006, and kept FL in 2007). C/Would you handle that, GTBacchus? I'm off to the physiotherapist... Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's done. We'll see what they say. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Live thread at WP:RS/N#List of liqueurs. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"1) Are the official sites acceptable as a reference" No. See WP:RS, WP:ELNO and WP:SELFPUB.

"2) Are commercial retailers acceptable" No, for the same reasons.

What we need are independent, reliable sources. A list of liqueurs would be best. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between a reference that verifies an item's existence, and a reference that validates a disputable "fact". This isn't a black and white question, which is why we are discussing it. Individual items in a list-article don't have to pass WP:N, which is why we are trying to ascertain how to "reference" them if their very existence is challenged. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's best if you read all the discussion here before commenting. The Pepsi article, as noted at least twice, has many references from the PepsiCo website, as they are the best sources supporting those portions of text of the article. Please don't make up criteria based on our eminently reasonable reference guidelines that appear to support your faulty reading of those guidelines. Badagnani (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's 100% clear that anyone's reading of the guidelines is "faulty". I mean, it's not 100% clear to all of us, anyway. I did address the Pepsi article above, noting that the article is based first on independent sources. Once an article is written, based on those, then it makes sense to link to, for example, Pepsi's corporate homepage.

This case is different in at least 2 ways: (1) This is not an article about one notable product, but rather a list of products, each of which may or may not be notable. (Yes, I know that items on a list don't have to be notable; I'm just observing differences.) (2) The links to Pepsi's website in the Pepsi article do not point to pages that are directly selling a product. Rather they point to the corporate homepage, and to other non-commercial pages at pepsico.com and at related sites: [50][51][52][53][54]. Furthermore, the great majority of references in the Pepsi article are independent of any company that makes or sells Pepsi. Those are the basis of the article, and the non-independent links are value added.

I certainly support links from this article to non-commercial pages, and I would be happy to start re-adding them, one-by-one, with discussion on a case-by-case basis. I think it would be appropriate to add links back in as they're approved by discussion here. How does that sound? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, and basically what Badagnani was asking for (and he appears to be asking for at other pages, where certain people are following him...[55]) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have also been followed to List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States, leading to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States. It remains quite interesting that the admin who is so eager to make a huge point out of this guideline issue is completely disinterested and refuses to say a word about the policy matter (the extremely aggressive WP:STALK I have been subjected to over the past three weeks, up to the present day, even after having been asked nearly 20 times. Badagnani (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a real jerk. You should open an RFC on the guy. I wonder though, why after nerly 19 times, you didn't just ask some other admin. Why keep asking the same guy, once he's shown himself to be totally unreasonable? Surely one of the other sixteen hundred admins is less of a jerk, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I mean, the least he could do is to scour Wikipedia, going out of his way and posting to various talk pages, trying to round up people who might support you in the content dispute, thus defeating the stalking on sold grounds. If he won't even do that, why keep him around? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope he'll watch what's happening here, and work on those disputes by treating them as content disputes and seeking outside opinions. It turns out that's the best way to deal with harassment, because you show it to be baseless in the eyes of the community, and then it crumbles. Simply trying to prosecute it as a behavior issue tends to fail, sometimes spectacularly.

I know that, when I add content and then it's removed, I start breaking it into small pieces and seeking discussion... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

More plans:

• Don't just replace the disputed links within the article: place them in ref tags, and add those to a "Notes" section (not a "References" section) if they are not reliable sources.
• You might consult one of our many many many lists of brands for guidance, or ideas.
• Ask for input at any of the 3 projects at the top of this talkpage, if you haven't already.
• Find a few reliable sites that lists multiple items needed.
• Are cites even needed for all of them at this stage? Can some of the entries just remain in the list unlinked? Was someone disputing their existence and trying to remove them from the list?
• Perhaps choose a particularly vexing external link, and argue over it specifically, instead of "all or nothing" type thinking. Something to get the editing ball rolling (instead of the discussion ball which appears to be a bit dented this week...) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, someone was disputing the existence of some of these liqueurs, probably about a year ago, which is why the links were added as references, where they could be found. If you'd read the entire Discussion page you would see Talk:List_of_liqueurs#Redlinks, where this was discussed. Badagnani (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Asking for input from relevant WikiProjects sounds like a great idea. I've asked at WikiProject Lists, but somehow overlooked the three at the top of the page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Specific links:

Here are the first five disputed links:

• 1 - no significant information that I see. Verifies existence of "Afrikoko", but not ingredients. Definitely a commercial site, not independent of those making and selling the product.
• 2 - Broken link, no idea.
• 3 - Verifies existence of "Dwersteg's Organic Chocolate Cream Liqueur", and also alcohol content. If you click on the product, you get to a page that verifies ingredients. Definitely a commercial site, not independent of those making and selling the product.
• 4 - Verifies the existence and alcohol content of "Vana Tallinn Chocolate Cream liqueur". Definitely a commercial site, etc., clear sales orientation.
• 5 - Verifies the existence of "Vandermint Mint Chocolate Liqueur". Commercial site, geared towards selling the product.

Of those five, I wouldn't add any to the article. They're way too sales-oriented, in my view, which might or might not be mistaken. What do others think? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at them again, and thinking about some conversations I've been having, I could see including #3 before any of the others. It's got the highest information/promotion ratio by far. Of course #2 is out, unless it suddenly starts linking to an actual webpage again. Other opinions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1. This is the manufacturer's site, but is informationless. Replace with [56] (it's been around since 1973!) or other
2. Use Archive.org's {{wayback}} to find&fix deadlinks: [57]. Either keep that, or replace with Cadbury's Cream Liqueur: A Case History
3. Looks fine. Includes ingredients list, mentions an award it won (not that we have to mention that here, but it provides information if a reader visits the site).
4. Looks fine. Ingredient list (via parent recipe of Vana Tallinn), mentions 2 awards won. (this appears to be the manufacturers site, not a retail site.)
5. This is Spam. Replace with this perhaps, or other. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Where there are no other sources available (and I'm not making any statements about what may or may not be available for these liqueurs), "a primary [i.e., not independent]] source may be used ... to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Bongomatic 01:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. (That's from Wikipedia:No original research btw). You really have to take the vehement anti-external-link folks with a grain of salt. They're a vocal minority in many cases, and a few of them regularly hinder (the encyclopedia and the community) more than help. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly

Agreed. Note, however, the full context.

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

WP:NOR doesn't say any primary sources may be used if nothing else is available; it says reliably published ones may be used. 86.139.250.11 (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

List Categories

The sublists on this article are rather inconsistent. For example, every Crème liqueur also falls into one of the other lists, every Berry liqueur could also be considered a Fruit liqueur and every Flower liqueur could also be a Herbal Liqueur. Then, we have Whiskey liqueurs, for some reason categorised by the alcohol instead of the added ingredient. Additionally most of the things under Other liqueurs can be put into one of the other lists. The scheme needs a complete re-definition to be logically consistent and unambiguous. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 02:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't find this list of lists to be very useful. I moved the chocolate list to Chocolate liqueur and there I split the list into three, by style. It could be split further, by other flavor. --Una Smith (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Time please

In response to the repeated deletion of material [58], [59]

A) This isn't a BLP issue, and there is no deadline. B) You appear to have driven off the main contributor to this article (he hasn't edited in 5 days) so we cannot rely on him for collaboration C) I'm busy in RL and with other wikiprojects D) I'm waiting for the admin GTBacchus to reply to the thread above.

Please stop deleting material repeatedly, especially items that we have already sourced - that is counterproductive. If you would like to collaborate, and help find RSs for the items, then please do.

Lastly, items in a list do not have to satisfy individual notability. See Wikipedia:Notability: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They don't directly limit the content of articles." [emphasis in original]. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where are you awaiting my reply? I didn't realize I was awaited somewhere. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Two threads up, we were discussing sources, and you were considering conversations you were having elsewhere. Eugene has removed the sources that you added after our last discussion, and keeps reverting my replacement of them. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed someone was doing that. I've invited him to this talk page section, but apparently he hasn't chosen to comment here. I agree that we've been developing a talk page consensus that non-commercial sites that verify the existence and other details about these drinks are okay. I'll put one of the links back in, and let's see what happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Chocolate Liqueurs

Is it just me or is there no page for the products called chocolate liquers? That being small bottle shaped chocolates filled with alcohol commonly consumed around Christmas time (at least in Britain). See here for an example. —Muleattack (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Brand name products and generics

The article's lists include both brand-name products such as Kahlúa and generic products such as crème de cacao. This is sloppy; the reader should be able to tell if a listed item is a brand name or generic. One possibility would be to capitalize only the brand name products and change the generics to lower case. The only problem with this approach is the brand-name product "illy Espresso Liqueur" is not capitalized. Anyway, some method should be used to distinguish the brand names from the generics. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Starbucks Coffee Liqueur

It's not clear if this article lists only available liqueurs or purposely includes historical ones.

Starbucks Coffee Liqueur, for example, has not been sold in five years, since 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3BCD:D200:CC20:ECF7:B66E:98F6 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

How about we restrict this list to only notable entries? --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm doing this. It's starting to get spam links creeping in again. Wikipedia:Write the article first is the easiest way to avoid the Wikipedia:Spam event horizon. Grayfell (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Vov, Lillehammer

Why are these linked to the communities Vov and Lillehammer? The articles do not mention liqueur at all. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Lillehammer

the link to Lillehammer does not mention the liqueur at all. What support for this? --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:0:0:0:F6CC (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)