Talk:Absolut Vodka/Archive 1

Archive 1

Absolut Citron

I notice that there is a working link for Absolut Citron in the list of flavors- but it links back to this page. On a similar note... does it really make sense to request articles for the various flavors of Absolut? Wouldn't they all be condemned to stub-dom? Kaitwospirit 01:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

The only listed source which is not an Absolut-owned corporate webpage only supports the section on name origins. This article reads at times like an ad - and not a brilliant one at that.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.161.96.161 (talk • contribs).

I concur. I replaced the (CITATION?) messages with the {{Fact}} template and added a cleanup tag to the article. Aep 03:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolut PEPPAR

Apparently, the person who added the note about Absolut PEPPAR has never tasted the stuff. It is most certainly not chili pepper-flavored, but black pepper-flavored. It's my favorite of the lot.

Dead Link

In the marketing section it links to AbsolutCollectors.com which apparently isn't up anymore. Also: AbsolutCollectors.com is listed in the external links...should i remove this, does anyone know what is going on with this website?

GMoonit 23:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

100 Proof

I distinctly remember 100 proof Absolut in 1996 or earlier. Came in a bottle with red lettering instead of blue. So why is it down as being introduced in 2007? Angryscientist 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there is the red labeled 100% proof and the black & silver labeled 100 % proof. For the differences i dunno.

I agree. I have been drinking 100-proof Absolut since 2005.

Yes, it certainly was not launched in '07. There are online reviews of this vodka out there dating back much further. [1]. I removed the reference, and also made a minor change to the name of this variety. It is not officially called Absolute 100. It is simply called Absolute Vodka. The differentiation is in the label itself--red coloring and the labeled notation of 100 proof liquor. Stivo 01:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The new bottle is a re-launch of the product, it is to attract a vodka to the male demographic. and is spelt as with all products "ABSOLUT" not 'absolute' as quoted above. The new product is called officially ABSOLUT 100.

That explains a lot. I work in a state store in PA and someone asked me what the difference was between the 100-proof Absolut with red lettering and Absolut 100, and the information on the bottles was exactly the same. That's what I was researching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.186.128 (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi Protect

Could someone protect this page to new users? Apparently some non-notable bloggers have taken offense to their recent ad campaign and have repeatedly vandalized this page (and mentioned my IP address on their page! Hooray!).--147.126.95.167 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WHY would you have to "protect" this page? IT seems top me that those that want to "protect this page" have a political agenda and that agenda is NOT the truth. It seems as if to me this page actually is endorsing the "reconquista" movement. If WIKI is going to survive, it needs to be on truth. This was a STUPID thing for ABSOLUT to do with 50% of their market share in the UNITED STATES. It serves a PERFECT business lesson of what not to do i.e., DO NOT ALIENATE YOUR PAYING CUSTOMERS" and then, expect the customers to by hook line and sinker a political agenda cleverly disquised as an "ad". This is about politics, NOT knowledge or documentation. A pox on your "scholarly" activities as a charade of political activism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.187.128 (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As a person from los angeles, I can assure you the HATRED of illegal aliens and GARBAGE like absolute is anything BUT "white nationalists". Most American citizens of ALL colors dispise that filthy toilet called Mexico, strangely enough, so do Mexicans, that's why they move here ILLEGALLY.

Absolute can write LA off it's profit lists...for good. We have started a word of mouth boycott that has caused many bars to STOP carrying it!!! Smoke that up you stupid Swedish pipe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.169.231 (talk • contribs)

Considering the fact that Absolut has issued a statement on their website regarding the matter([2]), and it has been mentioned by the Los Angeles Times ([3]), I think it is a bit more than a few "non-notable" bloggers. I myself am rather incensed at the ad, and will go out of my way to not buy their product in the future. I've added a segment on the issue to the article. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It was in LA Time's blog, an opinion site, and the other source used was a blog as well. If there are some neutral points of view, like a newspaper article, a news story, etc, I would consider keeping it, but for right now, I'd keep my emotions in check about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.127.11 (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolut has issued a response defending the ad on their website ([4]). I think it's time to stop blaming messengers and let it go up. IMSnooping (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Only somewhere like wikipedia could consider Michelle Malkin, perhaps the most popular conservative blogger, who has hosted The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News multiple times to be a 'non-notable blogger'. Just more Absolut proof of Wikipedia's liberal bias. Sniper Fox (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I never called her "non-notable." I will call her extreme, radical, eccentric and other things; but she's certainly notable among her fanbase. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"notable among her fanbase" as well as the general public. Best selling author. Major blogger. But of course Orangemike's the typical liberal; conservatives are only "notable among their fanbase." I also couldn't help but notice that as soon as the TRUTH began coming out, it was liberal (self described per his userpage) "Hippie" Orangemike that shut down the edits for the article. Why, it cannot be a news story, must be something made up by the "white nationalists" or "white supremicists" (notice how the liberals love to claim they are above name calling, yet immediately reach for it) and Wikipedia in general, and Orangemike in particular, simply cannot have them adding or editing to include the story. So, down the memory hole it goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.205.94.10 (talk • contribs)

A bit of perspective: Absolut has been in business for some 130 years offering middle brow vodka and vodka based products to the masses. They've offered whimsical advertising of every description for years.

Given their long history, there is no way a single ad campaign (or a single ad in it) gone unnoticed by all but a small contingent of white supremacists and other miscellaneous right wingers looking for their "controversy" du jour could rise to the level of notability that would merit its inclusion in the page. Given that absolut-ly no one cares outside of the Malkin set, a rather fringe political demographic to be sure, I'd have to second the motion to protect the page until the "issue" is forgotten (i.e. next week). The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you censors trying to protect Absolut from? The truth is the truth -- and the truth about this ad is no less notable than references on the article to any of their ads. Are you afraid of people knowing the truth? The LA Times has reported on this issue more than once. Absolut has issued two statements -- one defending the ad, one apologizing for it and announcing its withdrawal. Whether you're animated by the ad or not is of no consequence -- it's a notable event in Absolut's history and it belongs on the article.IMSnooping (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"a small contingent of white supremacists" Gosh. No obvious bias behind your editing. Nope. 67.135.49.254 (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I will agree that the article is a bit chatty in that it includes references to some ad campaigns for which Absolut is not especially noted. This is a weakness of the text to be sure. All the more reason that it should not be compounded with more nonsense like it.

The truth, as you say, is that the Mexico ads are being flogged by people with a fairly clear political agenda and that within a few days no one except a small political fringe of right blog readers will remember this ever happened. Indeed, the entire purpose of edits regarding the Mexico ads is to try to perpetuate and expand the supposed outrage into the mainstream. As such, the edits are fundamentally non-encyclopedic in nature. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To put it more simply: The edits including this Mexico ad business amount to political activism. See Wikipedia:SOAP etc. There's also an NPOV issue: If the interest in the subject is restricted to American white nationalists, it seems to me that its inclusion, being an assertion of its notability to a general audience, is just not justifiable within the context of an encyclopedia taking a neutral point of view. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay - political activism is banned, correct? Well then why on earth is there an entry that discusses the political activism of ABSOLUT and its support of the GLBT community? Anything having to do with nigh-communist left-wing ideology is somehow not political activism? Despite the webpage clearly implying that ABSOLUT's political activism on that issue is correct? You can't have it both ways. If a factual entry on the Reconquista ad can't be there because of "political activism" than neither can an entry on the embrace of GLBT community because that is just as much political activism. User:Cameron Mount —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.67.203 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, but the entrance in the political sphere was made not by "white nationalists" (?), but by Absolut. They're the ones who ran the overtly political ad. It's not as if people are making this up about Absolut. They made their own beds and there's no reason that something notable that Absolut did shouldn't find its way onto their article. And you're wrong that the matter is only of interest to a small sliver of people. Go to Absolut's website and read the comments to their statement. Last I looked, there were about 1000 comments, from people who lay claim to any number of political stripes.

I'd feel differently if somebody twisted something Absolut did. But it's a factual report about a factual ad. And a great deal of this particular article relates to Absolut's adverstising (as it the case with many consumer products companies).

In any event, you're blaming the messenger. This addition is entirely in keeping with WP's guidelines.IMSnooping (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree completely, utterly with the rabbit. At Yahoo, as of Mon., Apr 7, 9:36 PM ET, the Absolut reconquista ad was the most emailed news story, having been emailed 6,241 times: "Absolut vodka pulls ad showing California in Mexico / Reuters - Mon Apr 7, 9:36 PM ET / Sent 6,241 times." Most Emailed Story. Not just for The rabbit's name-called groups. Wikpedguy (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the description of a liquor advertisement by a quirky advertising agency as "the... reconquista ad" shows where the POV pushing is. And on a planet of 6 billion people, 6,241 e-mails is barely a rounding error. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember Wikireaders: Orangemike shutting down edits about the ad is not "POV". Noting that the ad is directly related to the push by many in the Mexican community to reconquest the southern U.S. somehow is "POV pushing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.205.94.10 (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are some neutral points of view, like a newspaper article, a news story, etc, I would consider keeping it, but for right now, I'd keep my emotions in check about it.

How about these for news paper articles and news stories?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-absolut6apr06,1,4346417.story (no this is not the LAT tblog) http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0729018920080408 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346964,00.html

Yes this is a real news story and not some blog story as you seem to think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.200.91.129 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While it was suggested that this is insignificant considering Absolut's 130 year history, the fact that they have only been in the United States since 1979 truly indicates their lack of political sensitivity for Americans and the issues facing us today. This new campaign of theirs makes it perfectly clear that they were willing to disrespect Americans in order to gain favor with Mexicans. Absolut's willingness to stir up political controversy in the United States in order to sell more vodka in Mexico makes the mention of this campaign politically relevant to the history of Absolut. [User:Phredd 10:01 8 April 2008] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phredd (talk • contribs) 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue has now been covered by several international news agencies, including the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, and Fox News. So keeping it out of the Wikipedia article is in itself a political viewpoint. The story belongs in the article, and a picture of the ad does as well, considering that, despite the ad being intended for the Mexican market, it is now likely the most well know Absolut ad in America. DesScorp (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"The rabbit..." should be banned from this discussion. Rather than discuss the substance of this issue, the rabbit is stereotyping and race-baiting by suggesting that everyone who is for these additions is a "white supremacist" "right winger" "MIchelle Malkin" reader (the latter nonetheless a complement). The rabbit continues to spout that this issue has only been raised by a small political fringe group. Since the rabbit's premise is unsupported bigotry, his arguments are also unsupported and should be ignored. Phredd (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is "Liberal Intellectual Fascism". It truly boggles the mind. Never thought those 3 words would ever be put together for that meaning.

Einstien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.187.128 (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As there seem to be quite a lot of Malkin enthusiasts pushing the issue, perhaps a compromise is in order.

To say the ads sparked "controversy," in my view, is to deliberately obscure the nature and extent of such controversy. As such, I have clarified the origins of the issue (as given in the extant reference) so that it is clear exactly how the controversy arose, who was involved, and more or less what their claims to having taken offense were based in. As long as it does not appear that a large number of people in the mainstream of American political discourse were involved, the section's temporary inclusion is not so egregious. The matter should certainly be revisited after time has passed, however, so a determination can be made as to whether this is something that ought to remain in Wikipedia for the remainder of its existence. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a few of the posters need to be disciplined here for not following the wikipedia talk page guidelines. "non-notable bloggers" is a disparaging opinion and unless it is cited with a source should be removed by the anon poser.

"white supremacists and other miscellaneous right wingers" is a perfect example of what not to post by the guidelines, specifically: "No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it." "The rabbit in the suitcase" should be banned from this site for failing to meet the basic guidelines required here and certainly should not be editing an article with such a clear bias.

Finally, Orange Mike needs to be removed from editing this page for obvious bias such as, "Especially since one of the loudest nationalists in this whole silly hissyfit, Malkin, is herself a non-white immigrant. "White" here seems to be shorthand for 'jingoist/chauvinist/anti-Mexican'." Just because you don't care for the justified criticism doesn't mean it is not important to others. There should be no place for such comments here.

Why are you so offended? I was pointing out that it was not fair to call her a "white nationalist" when she's neither white nor a native-born American herself. I was saying that somebody seemed to be using "white" as a slur, and that this was inappropriate. How does that make me the biased one? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the article itself, the mention of "Mexican immigration critic Michelle Malkin" has nothing to do with the ad itself and is used to discredit the criticism. I myself never heard of this person and it is irrelevant to the ad. The ad was released not through Malkin but by Absout themselves in Mexico and elsewhere. Please do not distract from the actual issue itself with such meaningless items.

The word "alleged" is not appropriate here, as it is a well-defined movement. One just has to look at Wikipedias OWN Aztlan article to see this or better yet Absolut vodka's own advertising!

Finally, the "its critics were adamant" comment is just silly and divisive. What the heck is something like that doing here?! (Mundunugu (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

My edits to the article are factually accurate. Indeed, Malkin is a critic of Mexican immigration and she did begin the campaign against the ad. Her history of criticism and activism on immigration issues informs her decision to make an issue of the ad. If you wish to remove the word "alleged" from the clause about the reconquista movement, please provide a credible source detailing the nature and extent of that movement. I think this would help readers to evaluate the plausibility of the critics' claims.

The phrase "its critics were adamant" is important in understanding the nature of the campaign against Absolut. They explained their position that the ad was purely fun and games, but this did not satisfy their critics in the least. This, again, informs the nature of the controversy. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I just think you're way out of bounds, rabbit. You're accusing other people of editing in the interest of political activism, while it seems pretty clear that's what you're doing. The difference is that those who think the ad should be mentioned are journaling a notable fact of Absolut's marketing history, while you're trying to whitewash it. It really doesn't matter what Michelle Malkin's political views are. This article isn't about her -- it's about Absolut. And they were the ones who ran the ad, not some blogger you obviously detest.

I think Orange Mike has done a fair job policing this hubbub. It absolutely belongs on the article and it's preposterous that you think it doesn't. What doesn't belong on the article is charged rhetoric of any kind and Orange Mike has correctly seen to it that it doesn't stay.IMSnooping (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think my edits to the article accurately reflect the facts. It is indeed the case that Michelle Malkin fomented the "controversy" such as it is. It is true that Absolut initially tried to explain that they had no intention of provoking anyone in the US and that the intent of the ad was whimsical (not political as some editors have charged), as is the case with most of their ads. It is a fact that critics of the ad found that explanation insufficient and persisted in demanding apologies and advocating boycott (as they still do, I might add). Any account of the "controversy" should include these facts, as they go to crucial questions of credibility and indeed rationality of those involved.

A neutral account of any controversy must report on all sides of it. The controversy was initiated via blog posts written by Malkin. Her political views absolutely inform the nature of her objections. To fail to report on the (rather radical) right wing views of those on one side of this "controversy" would be to mislead the reader. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But (a) this isn't a newspaper, and (b) the article has nothing to do with Michelle Malkin. You're making her the issue, simply because she's among the more notable people criticizing the ad. It's an Absolut article, it's about the vodka, its manufacturer, and its marketing. What you think of a particular ad's critics is immaterial to any of that. There is no "credibility" issue -- what happened here is pretty black and white and not in dispute. IMSnooping (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the article accurately describes the "controversy." Exactly why do you want to have a section about a controversy Malkin started but, at the same time, not mention Malkin? The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Because, as you've been told about 2 dozen times now, she's not the one who started it. She just happens to be the most visible Internet presence who's opined about it. Are we also to have a section on Reuters and the LA Times? Because I could argue that they "started" it. But that, too, would be ridiculous. Absolut started it, rabbit. You need to get over your obsession with Michelle Malkin. She has nothing to do with Absolut and this is an article about Absolut. Are you wanting to give this lady more publicity or something?IMSnooping (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The article contains a reference substantiating the claim that Malkin started the "controversy." If you have credible sources contradicting the claim, by all means show me (just to be clear, it is not enough for a source simply to omit any mention of Malkin by name). Otherwise, it seems to me you are making claims that are simply wrong and that will not be reflected in the article for that reason. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really poor editing to begin the section on the ad with Michelle Malkin instead of beginning the section on the ad with mention/explanation of the ad. You obviously have some problem with Michelle Malkin rather than are interested in having this entry explain about Absolut and one of its ads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.35.52 (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Orange Mike's tweak of my rearrange.Urzatron (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited the content as written by "The rabbit" to focus the article on the ad and the reporting by major newspapers and television news. This controversy is about Absolut's ad campaign and the offense as received by the American public. "The rabbit" continually tries to refocus this on "white supremecists" and Michelle Malkin. "The rabbit" is breaking all rules here, attacking those who want to discuss the ad campaign, race baiting and showing complete bias against those who suggest that Absolut's ad campaign was offensive on its own, not because Michelle Malkin raised the issue. "The rabbit" MUST BE BANNED!Phredd (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The most recent edits by Phredd finally give this ad the proper context and NPOV. (Mundunugu (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Let's hope people agree that this mention about the ad and the coverage should remain simplified as it is and that the extraneous discussion about Michelle Malkin might be better placed in her own topic. Certainly any opportunistic discussions about white supremacy or Mexican immigration have no place here. Phredd (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolut New Orleans

Absolut New Orleans needs to be added to the flavor lineup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.94.13 (talk) 00:20, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Yes.88.230.167.168 (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I loved it.88.231.54.87 (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} 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 . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

i don`t find Absolut VODKA (50%, red label)

it`s old Varieties Absolut VODKA (40%, blue label) Absolut VODKA (50%, red label) Absolut PEPPAR (Roasted Jalapenos, Green Tomato and Dried Herbs flavor – the first flavoured Absolut Vodka, launched in 1986) Absolut CITRON (Lemon flavour launched in 1988) Absolut DISCO (normal absolut vodka, blue label, in a special edition disco cover) Absolut BLING-BLING (normal absolut vodka, limited edition golden bottle). Absolut KURANT (Blackcurrant flavour launched in 1992) Absolut MANDRIN (Orange and mandarin flavour mix launched in 1999) Absolut VANILIA (Vanilla flavour launched in 2003) Absolut RASPBERRI (Raspberry flavour launched in 2004) Absolut APEACH (Peach flavour launched in 2005) Absolut RUBY RED (Grapefruit flavour launched in June 2006). Absolut PEARS (Pear flavour launched in January 2007). Absolut NEW ORLEANS (Mango and Black Pepper flavour launched in August 2007). This is a special edition in an annual city themed series. 100% of the profits go toward various Gulf Coast charities. Absolut C'N'C Fashion Animal (limited edition by Ennio Capasa] launched in 2007) Absolut 100 (100 proof, black bottle, flavour launched in 2007) Absolut MANGO (Mango flavour, launched in February 2008) Absolut LOS ANGELES (Acai, Acerola, Pomegranate, and Blueberry flavour mix launched in July 2008). This is the 2nd in the city themed series. Absolut is donating $250,000 from the sale of Absolut Los Angeles to Green Way LA.[1] Absolut LEVEL, launched in 2004, is a super-premium vodka created and sold by but marketed separately from Absolut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.111.49.193 (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

unnecessary information under ownership

hi ive never actualy edited wikipedia before so i didnt really want to edit it now and scroo things up for you guys. But the part where it says "See for David Jones's personal life Married four times he has fathered four children, his daughters Alexandra and Hazel attend Rathdown School and his sons Demetri and Rhys attended Blackrock College. Native South African entrepreneur David Jones is on the Forbes wealthiest peoples list, and all of his children will definitely be on the Forbes wealthiest peoples list when they are older." under the ownership heading seems unnecessary and it doesnt actualy link you to david jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.75.108 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not consistent

This article is not consistent with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%26S_Group

Incorrect link

Reference #7, biography of Bill Barminski, has a link to a website that doesn't appear to have any information about him (I checked the directors list for both "merge" and "merge UK". Evanturner (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Extremely biased - almost advertising

By my eyes, this is written like a commercial. Would someone more experienced please examine this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.103.106 (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup in History

Removed un-cited, poorly formatted and nonsensical statement: "The percentage of alcohol in a 50ml bottle is around 45% but a large bottle(800ml) contains around 94%alcohol,to control the level of alcohol only small bottles were sold but the company brought the large bottles back to business." Huh?

Reformatted paragraphs for readability. Added tags for needed citations. Replaced dead reference link. Still needs more work on references. Woodega (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Linking & over-linking

Per Wikipedia:Linking, internal links should be added to show relevant connections between pages, to provide background, and to explain technical terms or identify people. But, such links should usually only occur once on the page (one exception is inclusion in an Infobox and in the article text). Furthermore, common English words should not be linked unless the concept is directly relevant to the page.

I have removed second (and third, and fourth) links to common words such as "apple" and "Sweden". Also note that Orange is a disambiguation page, since that word refers not only to a fruit but also to a color and a whole bunch of other things, too. And finally, note that internal links are case sensitive, except on the first letter, so the ALL-CAPS city names used here don't work as internal links. If it is necessary to link to those cities, use piped links. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I use this page every so often for reference and I think the new update, especially the section of varities, is a great improvement, much clearer format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanbentley (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Indiscriminate list of flavors

I removed the list of every single variety of Vodka that is produced. I have replaced the section with some text that just mentions that there are a very wide variety of flavors produced. This should likely be changed, either elaborated upon or eliminated. The list was not readable, and I don't think it added to the article. Zell Faze (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)