Talk:List of whisky brands

message: All Tennessee Whiskeys are by definition Bourbons. See the Tennessee Whiskey WP page. Therefore, shouldn't Tennessee Whiskeys be under section 1.3, and not their own catagory 1.4? 97.75.161.222 (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is incorrect.  The Tennessee Process renders the whiskey unable to be called Bourbon. Bourbon can not have colors or flavors added to it, and Tennessee whiskey enters the barrel with an amber color due to the maple charcoal. Bourbon enters the barrel clear. Also, Tennessee whiskey will often be stored in used barrels, which is not allowed in a bourbon. It may be true that Tennessee whiskey is made from bourbon mash, but it is not bourbon as outlined above. You CAN have Tennessee Bourbon, despite many people thinking that bourbon can only be made in Kentucky. You could call a Tennessee Bourbon, Tennessee Whiskey, but not the other way around. Beakerboy (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The charcoal filtering process does not actually disqualify a whiskey from being called a Bourbon. Lots of products that are labeled as Bourbon are charcoal filtered, and the government regulations about whiskey production are completely silent on the subject of such filtering. In fact, according to NAFTA, which is the only government regulatory document I've seen anywhere that has directly addressed the topic in modern history, Tennessee whiskey is defined as Bourbon. Moreover, according to the U.S. code of federal regulations, if their filtering process was actually considered to be a coloring or flavoring operation, then Jack Daniel's and George Dickel would be required to be labelled as "blended" (or "flavored" or somesuch, like Red Stag), and they are not labelled that way. (By the way, it's called the "Lincoln County Process", not the "Tennessee Process".) However, the fact that these products are not labelled as Bourbon may be sufficient to justify listing them in their own category. We may not necessarily be aware of other ways that the product production practices deviate from the standards of "Bourbon". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: TL;DR: "All Tennessee Whiskey is bourbon, but not all bourbon is Tennessee Wiskey." 2600:8800:1180:25:2CA7:B9EF:75C5:CB29 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Tennessee Whiskey's Location

message: I know there is some whiskey they drink in Thailand, they sell it by bucket (I mean literally!!), it supposed to be wild. Other than stories about moon parties and all that I've never heard of it, so I can't edit it. However, "Mekong & Cola.. gin rummy", I'm deleting that sentence! Put a brand there! Everytime 02:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seached wikipedia. Found an article on a brand called Mekhong, so I added it. I'm replying to myself...... disturbing! Everytime 03:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed, Mekhong "whiskey" is made from rice. Can whiskey be made from rice?? Never heard of rice whiskey! Everytime 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whiskey, by several definitions from many different sources, is generally a distilled spirit made from grain, such as barley, rye, wheat or corn. Given this rather broad definition one could easily argue that there is such a thing as rice whiskey. I think I'll stick with Redbreast, though. Sláinte! Hammersbach (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thai Whiskey 

message: I suggest that List of bourbon brands be merged into List of whisky brands because this article already contains the list of bourbon brands. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 07:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I think that an article of this nature should at least attempt to show some sort of completeness.  There is an extensive list of rye brands in the "Rye Whiskey" article, but any article titled "List of whisky brands" must include rye.  Thus I have added the major rye brands to the list.  Jtnet (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rye whisky (American) 

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) 13:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: I was shocked to find that both Wild Turkey and Jim beam were owned by NON-U.S.A. companies.
I was thinking by drinking bourbon that I was drinking American Whiskey.
If the money doesn't stay here, then its a NON-U.S.A. company.
I am tired of sending my money outside the USA.
Looks like its Makers Mark , Heaven Hill , or Evan Williams from now on.
These ARE owned by companies of the good old U.S.A.( just so there are no mistakes or confusion, that would be "The United States of America")  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~~70.188.175.9 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maker's is now owned by Jim Beam aka Fortune Brands.  However, Fortune appears to be a US corporation. Beakerboy (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of these companies have been bought by Suntory, a Japanese company (2014), this includes Jim Beam and Maker's Mark products. American owned/made would be an important topic in my opinion, as quite a few people are interested in these products. There are also several products on the market now that are "independent" labels. Some of these are the same whiskey with vanity labels, but some are created and distilled using their own recipes, making them actual independent products vs. vanity labels. Ask Molly 05:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  As American owned 

message: Why no Canadian? ReverendG 04:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny you asked, for while you were asking, I was editing and fixing.  Article's been greatly expanded, and now includes several subsections in the American bit and a long Canadian section.  Apologies if there's too much info in the Canadian section, but that was more than I could take on tonight.  MrZaiustalk 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no Canadian? 

message: There's a category for American single malts, but nowhere to add American blended whiskey such as Kessler or Club 400. I was going to just add it but I wanted to ping here first. -- C.S.Pariah (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  American blended? 

message: Many of the brands listed here are redlinked (no articles) and unreferenced.  Normally I'd just clean up the article by removing all the redlinks since any *notable* brand would generally have an article.  But seeing as there are so many, I thought it best to see what others think.  --HighKing (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In such a list, redlinks are fine. It just shows what brands still need articles. Even after all these years, not everything notable is yet on Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm - not sure I agree with that 100%.  Especially with no references for most "brands" here.  It might be better to wait until an article has been created, then add to this list.  Alternatively, without an article, put in a reference.  --HighKing (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, two thoughts. Firstly, I don't know what reference a brand needs to establish existence. After all, The ability to go to a store and buy it is sufficient for WP:V (remember, the threshold of inclusion is not whether you can verify something, just that someone can). Secondly, list articles like this are not limited to items that have independent Wikipedia articles. Indeed, a mention here for items that don't have seperate articles is a good way for Wikipedia as a whole to cover them without a lot of stubby articles. List articles are not navboxes, after all. oknazevad (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No bother.  It's why I floated the idea out here.  If people are happy with things as they are, that's fine.  Thought I'd float the idea out there in case others also shared by views on a cleanup being required.  Thanks for the input.  --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bother. It's actually a good discussion topic, because it helps define the scope of the article. Thanks for bringing it up. oknazevad (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

text:  Would it maybe make sense to incorporate information for some of these minor brands into the article for the distillery or the parent company, and direct their links there? I seriously doubt many of the Heaven Hill varieties will ever be notable enough to have their own articles separate from the history of HH the company.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.28.135 (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I think that's a good plan of action. While any brand sold in the US must have a label approved by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Buerau (TTB) and the certificates of label approvals (COLAs) are online and searchable, that's a very time consuming process, and when some of the brands are private label store brands bottled from bulk whiskey, then there's a real question as to notability. oknazevad (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing that struck me as i was fixing a link in the Canadian section: there's a lot of redundant or potentially redundant links here, where different varieties of a common brand are listed with separate redlink entries that are unlikely to ever get theirown articles, because they aren't independantly notable enough. We could either a) use piping to point them all at the main article, but that increases the redundant linking, or b) cut out the links to one link to the main brand name, leaving the varieties to a list. I think the later is better, which is what I've already done. There's only one article on Crown Royal, so there should only be one link to it here. oknazevad (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might be better as a table.  The current article organization if all over the place, based as it is on Type->Distillery->Brand, leading to situations like where Jim Beam gets mentioned in 3 types of whiskey.  We've still got too many redlinks.  Some redlinks are for the brand of whiskey, but there's a good chance that they'd end up pointing to an article on the distillery - I'd remove redlinks on brands.  --HighKing (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Curious as to how that'd look. If you want to sandbox up an example, I'd be willing to look it over. oknazevad (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - I've duplicated the information into a table.  Doesn't look pretty :-)  There's far too much information in some entries.  But take a look here at table1 and table2 - make some suggestions as to what formatting and info we should try.  Feel free to edit there too :-)  --HighKing (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, sortable tables! Thats a great idea, as it allows the reader to group the brands in many combinations. Only 2 things I would do. First, if the tables are going to be broken down by country, there's no real need for a country column, as which table itself says which country it's from. Second, I think the brand should be the first column, because this is a list of brands.  The current grouping by company/distillery has never sat well with me, considering its a list of brands, but it did make sense in some ways. With sortable tables we can easily make the list truly alphabetical by brand, and readers can sort them by distillery or brand owner if they wish. I'll try my hand at a version later when I get a chance. oknazevad (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was originally going to have one big mother-of-all-tables for all brands - hence the "Country" column, and the Type.  But it might make sense to break it down and have a table per country.  I've changes the first Table as per your suggestions.  Whatcha think?  If it looks reasonable, I'll work on the other countries in the sandbox.  --HighKing (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup 

message: I'd like to add some Colorado whiskeys...but not sure where to start. Because there are a variety of offerings from the state, I don't think categorizing them all as Colorado Whiskeys is accurate...but since they're all fairly unique, I don't know if they belong in any of the existing "categories". Stranahan's, Peach Tree and Leopold Brothers all have Wikipedia articles, and Breckenridge is another. Would a microdistillery subsection be a better fit?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudopeople (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colorado Whiskey 

message: Regarding this edit, I'm not so sure it's a good idea to require a brand to have a physical presence in the country of origin, for several reasons:
# This article helps people look up brands they are interested in and find information about them on Wikipedia. Removing information about certain brands means it will be harder for people to find information about them.
# Some brands that do not appear on the market in their country of origin are nevertheless notable. Aside from the Canadian whisky brands that were removed in that edit, some other brands that might not exist in their country of origin are 100 Pipers, Black Dog, and Cougar.
# This is a world-wide encyclopedia. Someone outside of Canada might encounter a brand of Canadian whisky, and the question of whether that brand is sold in Canada or not is completely irrelevant from their perspective. (The same principle, of course, applies to other countries as well as Canada.)
—BarrelProof (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely. Export-only brands are no less Canadian whisky that domestic-only brands, or ones sold in both. It's a list of brands by origin, not availability. Terrible mistake. Glad you reverted. oknazevad (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requiring a physical presence? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of whisky brands. 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/20110115180500/http://www.oldripvanwinkle.com/newbs/vw/website3.nsf/pagesbyname/home?opendocument to http://www.oldripvanwinkle.com/newbs/vw/website3.nsf/pagesbyname/home?opendocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504165223/http://www.diageo.com/en-row/ourbrands/categories/spirits/Pages/Whiskey.aspx to http://www.diageo.com/en-row/ourbrands/categories/spirits/Pages/Whiskey.aspx
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) 02:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose removing any redlinks from the article. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See above sections where this was discussed. Your edits are careless blind removal. Look at what has resulted: headers with no entries, such as "Heaven Hill brands:" with no actual brands listed. That's pointless and excessive. oknazevad (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes it was discussed 10 years ago, things change. And I was very careful in my removal of information, if Heaven Hill does not have a notable brand then to at least acknowledged Heaven Hill itself is notable I left the Heaven Hill link but removed the nonnotable brands.--VVikingTalkEdits 16:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks