Talk:Alcoholic beverage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agalv009.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logos on Images[edit]

There are two pictures including the first one that show off the logos/brands of aclohol. I am new to Wikipedia, but I believe you are not supposed to do that, but I could be wrong. Kamren Johnson (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Life is "opaque" ?[edit]

In your article you let the expression "alcohol is a depressant" hesitating-less follow by the expression "in low dose it causes euphoria". This is "virgin" contradiction. I must conclude that you never did solve this.

Kind regards. (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no contradiction. read up on what the definition of "depressant" is. (I will grant that the naming of the drug class antidepressants as such was a poor choice, for this reason. they ought to have called them antimelancholiants instead). Firejuggler86 (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title of the article should be changed from Alcoholic drink to Alcoholic beverage[edit]

The title of the article needs to be changed from "Alcoholic drink" to "Alcoholic beverage". The word "drink" when used as a noun typically refers to a specific type of alcohol that is poured into a glass. "Beverage" is a more generic term that applies to bottled alcohol that is stored on shelves or tables.Anthony22 (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fully concur. The discussion above reveals that the participants were clearly unaware of the contexts in which both terms are properly used. Also, because of that subtle difference in meaning, the two terms are deployed at different levels of formality (i.e., different registers). This is the English Wikipedia in which we use formal written English, not the Simple English Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Does anyone disagree? ɱ (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do, absent additional information. See what Merriam-Webster [1] and the Cambridge Dictionary [2] list as the definitions of drink. Beverage is the term for generic consumable liquid while drink is generally associated with alcohol. -- Vaulter 20:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vaulter: You're proving the point - we're calling it an 'alcoholic beverage"', meaning 'alcoholic' is right there in the term. We're not simply arguing between 'drink' and 'beverage'. By your standard, 'alcoholic drink' is a redundant, like 'ATM machine'. ɱ (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3-to-1 is consensus enough, and there's no argument for the current title. I am going to move the page. ɱ (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 29 August 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Closing early under WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin page mover)Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 08:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alcoholic drinkAlcoholic beverage – Talk page consensus on new title. ɱ (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given there's been some discussion, this should go through a formal WP:RM process for closure as per WP:PCM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only one person objected and didn't even come back after weeks to defend their statement. I don't want to take even more time with a formal RM, after it's take 3 years to even get enough comments! The consensus is clear as day. ɱ (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not willing to process this as a technical request. A formal RM would most likely be closed in a week if there are no objections, and would be seen by more people. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @, I see your point, but as @Kj cheetham has pointed out, there's policy that applies here. I know you've waited a long time, but an RM only runs for 1 week, so it doesn't make much of a difference at all. Do an RM, and I'll watchlist it, and if it passes I'll do the move for you immediately. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This move would be directly contrary to an RM consensus of 2016. I personally wasn't too happy with that RM, and later expressed my concern on the Talk page here. Although I would probably support this, I think it needs an RM discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.