Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox drink

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flavour or taste?

[edit]

Which one do you think it should be, 'flavour' or 'taste'? - Sylph 09:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think flavor sounds better and is more accurate in this case. For example, we can say the main flavor of Lemonade is lemons, but it could "taste" differant to someone since tastes vary. --Mad Max 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, flavor/flavour is better. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 13:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABV & proof

[edit]

What if an alcoholic beverage has a number of different manufacturers who produce differing volumes? For example, Curaçao liqueur has various manufacturers, and there are a number of different volumes for it, ranging from around 20% to around 30%. Should one put an estimate to it, such as "around 25%", or put it more like "ranging from 20.0% to 30.0%" or "20% - 30%"? Or something else, perhaps? Sylph 09:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the infobox is there to provide at a glance information, so it doens thave to mention all cases (which looks like for Curacao should be mentioned in the article. I would say put something that is based on the most common manufacturer, if thst notspossibly just put "~20-30% depending on manufacturer". --larsinio (poke)(prod) 14:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Website parameter

[edit]

I added a Website parameter for the official website of the beverage. Bebestbe (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive wikilinking

[edit]

There's no need to link to color/colour from the label in this infobox. I'd remove it myself but I'm not sure of the syntax and don't want to break anything (presumably just removing the square brackets would be fine, but I'm just being careful). Arguably the same applies to flavor/flavour, but that's a little more relevant to beverages. Quietbritishjim (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Quietbritishjim (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Different proof readings

[edit]

I noted that the template for this had 'Proof' without qualification. In the template notes I see that this is 'US only' but that wasn't obvious to readers of the articles. I have placed a qualifier on it for the time being (to be proof (US)) to avoid confusion, but think this needs a better fix, which is probably to have both international (i.e. 7/4 of ABV) and US proof (8/4 of ABV) in the template. Even better if this was automated from the ABV.

This would reduce potential confusion, especially on international brands.

If automation isn't possible, then i suggest changing the string to USproof or similar, and introducing an internationalproof one alongside. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 10:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

Can we change the parameter country of origin to just origin, since a lot of pages provide the city/region and country. Tinton5 (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logo parameter

[edit]

bsd. Is it possible to add a logo parameter to this template? Thanks --Ben Stone 20:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The related parameter is unclear to me. Is it intended only for products from the same manufacturer (in which case it's irrelevant to articles about generic beverages and relevant only to articles about brands), or is it meant to cover comparable beverages regardless of manufacturer (in which case it should be called "similar" or "comparable")? What triggered my question is this edit to Cognac, which had listed both Armagnac and Vinjak as related products, in which an editor removed Vinjak while leaving Armagnac. I was deciding whether this was an improper removal, but then I realized I couldn't determine whether or not each of Armagnac or Vinjak belongs there, or whether Armagnac belongs there more than Vinjak does. Largoplazo (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Region

[edit]

Why is "region" parameter listed twice with two different interpretations? Which one is correct? GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2024

[edit]

Change the thing saying the year from (example)

2023; 1 year ago

To

2023 ≈ 1 year ago Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 23:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. cyberdog958Talk 11:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Template:Infobox cocktail

[edit]

Per this tfd, {{Infobox cocktail}} is currently being merged with this template. I’m planning to keep all of the information displayed in the Infobox with ONE exception. My plan is to remove the image displayed in the standard drinkware section. This extra inline image seems superfluous to me, particularly when there is a link to the type of glass already (beer mug or margarita glass for example). If anyone has any strong feelings about this please voice them here. —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to keep the source link logic? The proposal seemed to be to eliminate it, but it was unclear to me. IBA changes their links often enough that I think there is value in keeping it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m actually working on that right now. Personally I am in favor of removing it. I don’t see what makes IBA special enough to include their link in the infobox… If it is in a <ref> that’s one thing, but mass including links to the IBA seems to me to be a clear case of WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Particularly because the website in question is restricted to 18 and over.
If there is strong objection to this, I can certainly keep it for now and bring {{IBA recipe}} to a WP:TFD separately… Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about IBA, sadly there is a guideline somwhere that says IBA is the definitive source for IBA cocktails. I would love to change that but we're stuck with it for now. Changing all the individual IBA cocktail articles when the IBA link changes is a lot more work than just changing the template; so the link logic seems like a good thing to me. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll let this sit for a day or two to see if there are objections, but otherwise I will WP:BOLDly remove it as part of this merge. Nothing to say it can’t later be added back to the pages, particularly in the External links section of the page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are objections I will be running the conversion tonight. -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I completely misunderstood what you were proposing to do, and I think we have a problem now. I thought you were just going to remove the sourcelink logic, which helped to find the url for the source citation. But what you've done is to remove the source citation completely! This leaves all the recipes for all the IBA cocktails unsourced. This goes way beyond the bounds of what normally happens in a template merge, and should have been discussed ahead of time. GA-RT-22 (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No references were removed during the merge. The only that was removed was an WP:EL that was a clear WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Nothing stopping you from adding references to the Infoboxes or the articles themselves, but those were not references. Your statement that what I have done is to remove the source citation completely is not accurate. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you want to get pedantic, what you have done is taken a set of information (the recipe) that was verifiable and made it unverifiable. WP:V requires that information be verifiable with an inline citation. Normally that citation takes the form of a ref tag. At one time, embedded external links were used as inline citations. That practice is now deprecated. That doesn't mean that such citations should be removed, it means they should be converted to ref tag citations. For example, WP:CS:EMBED says "Since any citation that accurately identifies the source is better than none, do not revert the good-faith addition of partial citations. They should be considered temporary, and replaced with more complete, properly formatted citations as soon as possible."
Which point of WP:ELNO do you think applies here? I don't see it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_drink&oldid=1314996181"