Talk:Espresso

message: Zaffiro, I'm a little curious about this edit. How is instant espresso different than instant coffee? And more curiously, why do we want to avoid mentioning it? – JBarta (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your take on the matter does't quite jive with the source you present. Your source defines "espresso" as both a beverage and a method. Actually that's being generous. The source overwhelmingly defines it and refers to it as a beverage rather than a method. And while your views on the legitimacy of an "instant espresso" product are interesting, it doesn't really matter what your views are or what you think their marketing aims might be. What matters is what the sources say. And your source isn't saying. The product also seems to be marketed as "espresso powder" for use in cooking. Certainly no one is suggesting that "instant espresso" is the same as traditional espresso, but that doesn't mean we have to avoid it altogether. I see no reason why it can't be included in an accurate and neutral manner. If sources generally describe it negatively as you have, we can include that as well. If sources really don't comment one way or another, then maybe we shouldn't editorialize and just let the reader decide. – JBarta (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Well here's a source that defines instant espresso as a powder which makes espresso when combined with hot water. And this states that espresso powder is brewed espresso (maybe even by the espresso method?!) that has been dehydrated into granules and to make espresso, you just add boiling water. Now granted, most uses seem to be for cooking, but the fact remains that it's a real product and it falls under the topic of espresso. You seem to champion limiting the article to only include espresso brewed in the traditional fashion by the espresso method. Clearly though, the topic of "espresso" is not limited to that. In my opinion the article is improved by mentioning instant espresso (and espresso powder) and certainly is not harmed. – JBarta (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instant espresso 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Espresso. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060901142626/http://www.espressopeople.com:80/guides/espresso/whatis to http://www.espressopeople.com/guides/espresso/whatis
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The alternative spelling "expresso", which the Oxford English Dictionary and the Online Etymological Dictionary call a variant spelling, was deleted from the lead. The Wikipedia guideline on lead sections states that alternative spellings should be provided in the lead. MOS:LEADALT states that "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages." An editor called the spelling "expresso" a corrupt spelling. Yes, various sources call "expresso" "wrong" and "incorrect". However, there are also sources supporting the "x" spelling. If "expresso" is good enough for the Oxford English Dictionary (which calls it a "variant" spelling), it is good enough for our Wikipedia article. I am putting "expresso" back in the lead, with the references it had before it was deleted. As well, MOS:LEAD states that the lead should "...summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Espresso isn't a controversial political or religious topic, so about the most controversial thing about it is how it should be spelled.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 00:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Also, you (MOS:LEADALT) mentioned other languages. There is at least this one: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expresso , and I think it and any very popular others should be mentioned. (The drink may be attrib to Italy, but many mixes of it are French.) Sadsaque (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Expresso

message: OnBeyondZebrax added the content below to the section on Etymology. This seems excessive for content and sources on what should be a concise matter per WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:OVERCITE.
--Zefr (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Zefr is incorrect. The content above was not all added by OnBeyondZebrax. Two parts of it were added by me. The section as it stands seems to me to cover the dichotomous aspects of the matter concisely and judiciously. Tim riley talk  07:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Espresso. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140223214525/http://cupandbrew.com/pages/brewing-the-best-cup-of-espresso to http://cupandbrew.com/pages/brewing-the-best-cup-of-espresso
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Espresso. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009163124/http://www.gimmecoffee.com/galleries/anatomy_of_a_triple_ristretto/ to http://www.gimmecoffee.com/galleries/anatomy_of_a_triple_ristretto/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Espresso. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016074645/https://espresso.net/blog/expresso-or-espresso/ to https://espresso.net/blog/expresso-or-espresso/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Cold espresso (espresso freddo) is an alternative form of espresso, mostly served in southern Europe. Conceived in Greece"
What evidence is there to support this claim?
My parents from Spain were drinking cold espresso ("solo con hielo") back in the 40s. In Italy this is also a very popular drink. Beside being a rather uninteresting claim, I cannot see how any country with hot weather can prove they were the first ones to think of serving ice-cold coffee. Seems like a pretty obvious thing to do in summer in any country.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.233.247 (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold Espresso origin question 

message: This edit is an opinion, WP:OR, supported only by a commercial, spam source. It has been reverted.  is edit warring, and warned for WP:3RR and original research. --Zefr (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over espresso machine 

message: Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this article. I noticed that the espresso roast section is quite small. I believe that the purpose of this section is to convey that generally, certain batches of coffee beans are roasted with the expectation that they will be used for espresso, and that creates an opportunity to talk about why this is and what decisions go into creating an espresso-specific roast. I was wondering if anyone had any insight into why that section exists before I attempt to expand on it.
I don't think the majority of the items in the see also section are any more pertinent to espresso than they are to any other coffee topic. Cuban espresso isn't necessarily more strongly associated than any other espresso-based beverage; knockboxes aren't necessarily more significant than any other espresso making equipment, and I think that bikini baristas are more associated with cafe culture than espresso itself (though I didn't even realize that that variation on baristaing existed until reading this article). Is there any reason why I shouldn't abbreviate that list? Stelercus (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of the espresso roast section; items in the see also section 

message: — Assignment last updated by Taty2004 (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: English 102 Section 5