Talk:Cocktail
Article needs vast improvement
I've rolled back edits that have only confirmed the very sorry state this article has long been in. It's no fault of Anoted, who has worked hard to improve the article today, but the whole basis of this article was wrong, and doesn't need to be confirmed by more work along the same lines.
The article has absolutely no citation for any definition of the word cocktail. Instead, it's more or less a list of things perceived by the article's various editors to be cocktails. Even if they're not. There's a lot of T:NO RW creep in the article, in other words, and that just won't do.
Especially when editors' real world "knowledge" of the world is shaky. A gin and tonic, for instance, is in no way a cocktail, but simply a highball.
This article should not be a list of drinks. Rather, it should focus squarely — as every article should — on defining the topic. All of theses drinks should be moved off into their own articles, and they should only be included in this article:
- briefly
- if it can be established that someone in the DWU actually calls them a cocktail
