Talk:Chicago cocktail

Name and notability

This article was renamed and redirected by another editor about two minutes after I created it. However, the change is wrong, because the name of the drink in all references is not the "Chicago" but the "Chicago cocktail," always spelled out that way, just like "champagne cocktail." The drink is in many venerable cocktail manuals going back to the 19th century and a little easy checking will show its notability now that retro cocktails are becoming popular. The article should be returned to its original name and retained.Fijagdh (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi - The other editor was me, and I left a note on your talk page. I have requested the renaming be reverted. I am still concerned about notability though, because while many articles for healthy recipes for this exist, there is very little coverage (e.g. who drinks it, why it's famous, etc...). WP is not a recipe book so I think it would help if there was a little more indication of importance (such as the case of Manhattan (cocktail)). Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   01:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's no manhattan or martini, but I would think that its very age and replication in so many significant cocktail books such as the Savoy would establish notability. It's certainly as notable as, say, the Yelptini.Fijagdh (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

@ User:7, since you added the {{Notability}} tag to the article, what would establish notability in your view? I just glanced a the article and it appears to be verifiably and reliably referenced. According to the notability guideline, referencing is the primary metric used to determine notability. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but this seems to be a somewhat malicious tagging (especially considering the age of the article and the WP:DONTBITE behavioral guideline).
— V = I * R (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't stop the article improvement on my account by any means... When I first tagged it looked like a recipe, but it's getting better. As I said above, to make it notable it seems that there should be something more to it than simply being among a group of vintage drinks that may be coming back into fashion. e.g. something like "President xxxxx was known to fancy a Chicago Cocktail when ..." or "It is enjoying a resurgence in popularity due to its frequent appearance in movies/tv/...". Just seems like the other cocktail articles are much more substantive.

Also, I am a bit surprised at the malicious tagging comment. From my side:

• I tagged notability when the article looked like this. Essentially a recipe - this was AFTER I checked google.
• We don't usually consider something like "... probably named for the city of ..." to be encyclopedic.
• I posted straight to the author's talk page as a courtesy when I renamed.
• WP:BITE is a policy for newcomers, not 3 year old accounts as in this case (although I do not think what I did was even close to biting if this was a newcomer).
• Notability isn't just about being referenced. It requires significant coverage in reliable sources. While this is now referenced (not when I tagged it), it may be a stretch to say it meets the bold criteria above.

If you feel it's notable then you are certainly welcome to remove the tag.

If I have missed the point or done something specific that you think was biting that I have not addressed please let me know, although my talk page would probably be a better place for that type of comment.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   11:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I could spend days arguing about the notability guideline, but this is certainly not the place for such a discussion (and the subject tires me out, regardless). You defended your actions in a reasonable fashion, so I'm satisfied anyway.
— V = I * R (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added some additional citations (almost to the point of ridiculousness for such a short article) and deleted the notability tag. The presence of the Chicago cocktail recipe in so many secondary sources dating from the 19th century to today seems a good gauge of notability, as does the 1931 reference to its being served in other countries and its being highlighted as a "drink of the week" in contemporary publications.

The drink has been documented in books, magazines, newspapers and online. I don't agree that somebody famous has to bless it or it has to be in the movies to make it notable enough for a short Wikipedia entry.

And while "probably named for the city of" may not be very encyclopedic, it does appear to be the best information available. If you read the article by Leah A. Zeldes cited, you can see that the drink's origins are disputed. I can't find an appropriate citation, but there's speculation it may have been named for a Chicago Club in some other city. 75.57.114.67 (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you anonymous contributor. I don't believe anyone has tried to restore the tag that you removed, so the article should be fine, and I don't think we need to dwell on it here. I mentioned the movie/famous comments above because, again, when the article was first created it was just a recipe. Period. You've added references which is great, because in terms of establishing notability I would argue that one good reference is more important than the same recipe being in a thousand cookbooks. Thanks.  7  08:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Move to "Chicago Cocktail"
— V = I * R (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Chicago (cocktail) → Chicago cocktail —

• Chicago (cocktail) → Chicago cocktail — I moved per MOS naming, but author claims that it's real name is the "chicago cocktail", different from a "Manahattan" —    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   01:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've checked a dozen references and every one refers to the "Chicago Cocktail," never the "Chicago." And there is another equally venerable cocktail called a "Chicago fizz." So "cocktail" is definitely part of the proper name of this drink and should be the article title.

Now I'm wondering whether that nomenclature information should be part of the article. I'd have thought it too trivial, but after this exercise, I'm not so sure. Given 7's other challenge to the article, though, I'm not inclined to do any more work on the thing. Next time I create an article, if I ever do, I'm going put in all the cites and references first and add the content later. Fijagdh (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems like sound reasoning, to me. If the proper name is "Chicago Cocktail", then that should be the article title. Note the capitalization of Cocktail as well, which is supported by WP:TITLE#Lowercase.
— V = I * R (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be no objections - can an admin move it. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   08:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So... is it Chicago cocktail or Chicago Cocktail, as Ω suggested above? If the latter, you can just go ahead and move it yourself. Jafeluv (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there seems to not be disagreement with what I suggested above, and considering the fact that the capitalization is supported by WP:TITLE#Lowercase, I'll go ahead and move it to Chicago Cocktail.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicago Cocktail. 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/20091005095936/http://www.drinkoftheweek.com//archive/c/chicago_cocktail.htm to http://www.drinkoftheweek.com/archive/c/chicago_cocktail.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of cocktails which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)