Talk:List of liqueur brands

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External Links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Goldschlager

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. . (Also note that the grams per liter refers to sugar expressed as invert sugar.) Athulin (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Absinthe

message: 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)
thread_title: Ouzo

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Calvados

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Paan Liqueur

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Whisky Liqueurs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Redlinks

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  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)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Frangelico.jpg

message: cherry is not a berry but a fruit so why is it under the berry section?
bmenn (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I will move it. --kupirijo (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherry is a fruit not a berry 

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: reply from Ronz

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Commercial Link Principle

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List Categories 

message: In response to the repeated deletion of material , 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Time please 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chocolate Liqueurs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brand name products and generics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Starbucks Coffee Liqueur  

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vov, Lillehammer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lillehammer