Talk:Tequila slammer

Alleged academic study

That comment at the end about a study seems like B.S. It needs to be sourced or removed.--Sludge 06:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to add it back in, here it is:

In a controversial and highly funded survey carried out by The University of Southern California it was found that continued episodes of 'Tequilla Slammers' have a 98% chance of getting you 'laid'.

--Sludge 16:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Appearance in a film

This drink is consumed in the French Film (Beatrice Dalle's debut role) 37°2 le matin (aka Betty Blue) and the English subtitles call the drink "Fast Tequila" which is also a literial translation from what I have heard it called in a Mexican restaurant (Tequila Rapido).70.253.66.179 (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture tag

Please actually READ the tag. It says: "This article may contain trivial, minor or unrelated references in popular culture. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivial references". There are still two left, both unreferenced. Both are simply trivial. There is a sentence explaining that they were in that movie and the role they had in the movie. The first is a claim it was important to the main character. That's fine.......for that movie. That doesn't give in any impact on pop culture as a whole. The second lists a mere appearence. So it was in a movie, that does not give it any impact on pop culture. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The article as a whole is unsourced, and there's another tag indicating that. Both of the remaining pop-culture references, though, claim to have had an impact on their respective works beyond "Character X ordered this at a bar". You disagree that they are significant? Fine - remove them yourself, don't just keep re-adding the tag as it won't be doing anything productive. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• The pop culture tag deals with more than unsourced. The mention of unsourced merely points out that it can be removed without further work until it is properly sourced, regardless of how trivial it is. Secondly, to be in this article, it needs to have an impact beyon its own movie/book/show. I was trying to preserve them in the event there was something significant about them that I was simply unaware of. Fine, I'll remove them. Regardless, your removal of the tag without actually fixing the problem is improper and you should know better. Similarly, tagging an article for improvement isn't unproductive, something else you should know. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• See, here's the issue: I did fix the problem to my satisfaction by removing trivial/minor items. You are of the opinion that this was insufficient; that does not mean I "should know better", that means you should either explain what you want done or do it yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• When the tag was replaced, it should be evident that your fix wasn't a clear resolution. So yes, you should have known and not just removed it over and over. Additionally, since you felt it was fixed, you could have started this conversation to explain why it was fixed in your opinion. Instead, you chose to simply remove over and over. Again, for someone in your position, you should have known better. Lastly, there is nothing in those two examples that you left that even hinted at them being significant beyond the movie they were in, making your criteria pretty questionable, thus putting the onus of explaining why they belonged back on you. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)