Talk:Barton Brands

Untitled

I added some redirections to this page (99 Apples, 99 Oranges, 99 Berries, 99 Black Berries, and 99 Bananas) - Ouzo 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A Chicago company?

Removed the Chicago project template since the article does not mention a Chicago link. Pknkly (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"reasonably priced spirits"

Seriously? Sometimes the things that get included in Wikipedia articles astound me. And those logos that are so important to include are a just a little... redundant. 2601:140:8302:E260:7844:690C:14AE:217A (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barton 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/20090320115514/http://edc.owensboro.com:80/documents/ConstellationSpiritssold.pdf to http://edc.owensboro.com/documents/ConstellationSpiritssold.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCATALOG

From WP:NOTCATALOG

5. Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. (bolding mine)

The brands listing is just a product list showing the availability of their products. We don't do product lists. The promotional aspect of these lists is underlined for the parent company when they list "Expressions" rather than "brands". A euphemism that full of BS deserves special treatment. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"Availability" means which markets it is found in, or whether or not it's a temporary limited release. Lists of brands or products of companies are standard across Wikipedia, not just whiskey distilleries. oknazevad (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"Availability" mean whether it is available to be purchased, i.e. whether it is a product that the company sells. WP:NOT is one of our fundamental policies - it defines what we mean by "encyclopedic". We don't do product lists. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No, "availability" means the specifics of how and where you can get it. Being able to identify what brands a company produces is valuable information to the public. We shouldn't provide the address, phone number, and operating hours of stores that sell the products, but people should be able to figure out who makes what. The list of brands that a company produces is absolutely standard fare on Wikipedia, as it should be. Look at General Motors or Ford Motor Company. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. There are numerous standalone list articles, like List of Coca-Cola brands, let alone sections in company articles. Clearly there's an understanding that this sort of information is encyclopedic. The only conflict between the content and the guideline is in your over-strict misunderstanding of it. oknazevad (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Mine or Smallbones'? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones'; I agree with you fully. oknazevad (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(EC)You have a very narrow view of "availability." If it can be purchased, it's available. Furthermore product lists are promotional. Please stop it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you think the List of Coca-Cola brands should be deleted? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

And how is listing the products a company produces, one of the defining features of a company, promotional? oknazevad (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sazerac /Barton

@Oknazevad - since Sazerac is the owner of Barton Products, why wouldn’t these all be in the same place? I didn’t see products listed on the Sazerac page, so maybe all the products on the Barton page need to be moved to Sazerac, since Barton is no longer and independent company. I don’t have a problem moving them to the Sazerac page, but it seems kind of rendundant not have a complete list in one place. The ones excluded from Barton have to go somewhere, right? MissTofATX (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The list here is supposed to be a list of the brands Barton owned before they were bought out, or ones still produced at the Barton Distillery, as that's still its name, and this article is also the article about that specific distillery. Either way, Buffalo Trace certainly doesn't belong here, as that's a whole other ball of wax. Indeed the article on Buffalo Trace lists the whiskeys made at that distillery. That said, we don't need to list every brand. That runs into issues with WP:NOTCATALOG. oknazevad (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)