Talk:Sour (cocktail)

message: Despite the fact that a lot of people seem to feel this drink is "boring", I have discovered that it is a highly notable cocktail with a long, respectable history. The old, original article was blanked into a redirect (which I fully supported), because it was essentially a one-paragraph recipe. While a fair amount of the new article is also recipe-based, I think it will serve well as the starting point for a real article. I slanted it toward the entire family of drinks called "sours", and it might be better to eventually rename this article to that title, and simply highlight the Whiskey Sour as one member of that family. At least that's the way I'm kind of leaning right now. I will wait a while and see how, and if, anyone else cares to improve this article. --Willscrlt 08:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A fresh start

message: The info on the page was good, but not all of it was relevant.  For example, the fact that many other classic cocktails (e.g., juleps, flips) were in Thomas was mentioned, even though it's not necessarily relevant to the fact that Sours are in there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philvarner (talk • contribs) 07:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorg notes on the Sour page

message: I'm not sure how to fix it without screwing up the box, but a White lady is not composed of Brandy.  it even says so in the article.  it is a Gin based drink.Lisapollison 03:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: White lady Infobox is wrong

message: I thought a white lady was metholated spirits and milk (or lemon juice) a favourite of indigenious australians.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.0.223.244 (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Metho & Milk

message: The most popular sours from my experience here in england is Amaretto sours. Just wondering if there is a concensus to add this to the 'others' list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.219.99 (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Others section 

message: There is insufficient WP:SIGCOV in the sources for a standalone article. However, as there is more detail sourced content than already provided in Sour (cocktail) a merge is appropriate. Polyamorph (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose I removed White Lady from the sour article because the addition wasn't sourced. The only sources I've been able to find for it are recent and have probably copied us. And, I've been able to find books that explain the difference in detail. Spudlace (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are sources in White Lady (cocktail) that pre-date this article. Polyamorph (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sources are those? Spudlace (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's not a great source but this goes back to 2002. Not sure about the others, can't access them all, although I would think the independent source if accessible would be independent of wikipedia. Anyway, I'm not strongly in favour of the merge if there is nothing to merge, but the article is insufficiently notable to standalone so will need to redirect here. Polyamorph (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You yourself said "The only sources I've been able to find for it are recent and have probably copied us". If you oppose the merge that's fine but then removing the section in this article makes little sense if you are claiming it satisfies WP:GNG, it's fine to include a section with a the  template. Anyway, as it stands I still suggest a merge is the most appropriate action right now, other opinions welcome. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misrepresenting what I said. Which of the merge criteria do you believe this falls under? (see WP:MERGE) Spudlace (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, I do not see how I'm misrepresenting your comment. You suggest there are no sources that predate this article, but also make an apparently contradictory statement that there are sources. You will have to forgive my confusion in this instance. Perhaps you could clarify why Sour (cocktail) is not an appropriate target. I do not believe White Lady (cocktail) is likely to be expandable, sources exist but they do not appear overly extensive, I do not see the justification for an independent article. Hence the merge proposal. Your opposition to the proposal is noted. Polyamorph (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The White Lady is not a sour. There is one source that considers White Lady a type of sour, but it's not a widely held view, and it's disputed in detail by other sources that are cited in this article. If White Lady was to merge, it would be to sidecar. If you are really confused about this I don't think you should be making proposals. Spudlace (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying, your original comment was not clear on this matter. The article White Lady (cocktail) was redirected to this page Sour (cocktail) in 2007 - it was only recreated yesterday. I do not believe there is justification for a standalone article and suggesting a merge to this page to restore the previous 13 year old redirect was entirely reasonable. Having said that Sidecar (cocktail) appears to be a more appropriate target and I will support a merge to that page instead. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not notable enough for it's own article. Would support merge into Sidecar (cocktail). --John B123 (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[White Lady (cocktail)]] into [[Sour (cocktail)]]