Jump to content

Talk:Bundaberg Rum

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

Untitled

[edit]

Listing the blends in order of desirability, according to the author, is quite horribly non-NPV, wouldn't anybody agree?

Absolutely, I'll try to do something about it.
A quick look on the company website seems to show more types of Bundy than are listed here.
Whoever made this entry also didn't know the meaning of "proof," and substituted it for "percent alcohol", apparently not knowing that proof is twice the alcohol percent by volume. I fixed it.

Minor Edit

[edit]

Updated the logo to the new one (it had the old red "RUM" lettering, instead of the new smaller gold lettering)

Updated the product list - added Bond 12 and Bundy Draught - also sorted products into categories (Bottles, RTD and Keg).

Removed a small paragraph about Bundy local names, like "Fightin' juice". I've drunk rum all over Australia and never heard of it. Certainly not widespread enough to be included in this small article.

I Plan a major expansion of this article when I get time, there is so much more information that could be included. (eg. History section, distillery, advertising etc).

Logo changed to PNG format Justinbrett 05:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Bundaberg Premium RTD to the list, this is being brought out by Diageo in the very near future, as well as a bundy tallie will add that when the diageo reps infor me --Thebeige 11:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


--- There appears to be a citation to nothing at all (no footnotes in the text, but a note at the bottom)...

7 Nov 2007 - The official Bundy Rum website contains the brief history of the rum including the name of the man who introduced the "polar bear" as the logo of Bundy Rum in 1961.

I also own a 95 page book called "Bundy - A Centenary History" written by Keith Dunstan, former Courier-Mail (Brisbane from c.1957) journalist, for Bundaberg Distilling Company, presumably in 1988. But the copy I hold has no print date and no references/sources but has apparently been taken from Company records. The history is more detailed in the book. Razorwiki15 15:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

As this article currently does not include much on Bundaberg Rum Distillery, I wonder if the images (which appear to be of a tourist gift shop-like building more than the plant itself) are really that relevant. If they are to be retained, I feel they should be recaptioned to reflect their content.

Also fair use citation should be added to the picture of the packaging of the Bundy cans, as the logo and graphics will be under copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.17.174 (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

[edit]

Bundaberg Rum's sponsorship of the NSW Rugby League has been criticised by Drug/Alcohol support groups, talkback radio, and the press.

My reference included a full page article The Australian (Australia's largest national daily newspaper) which was scathing in its criticism of Bundaberg Rum and its sponsorship of the League.

Criticism such as what was printed in that newspaper story is not going to please some League fans (hello Tiburon), nor is it likely to please Diageo (the parent company of Bundaberg Rum).

Nonetheless, this criticism has received coverage in Australia's national media, and should be reflected in Wikipedia.

Otherwise, Wikipedia would become identical to the product pages of the manufacturer's website.

The Criticism section of the Bundaberg Rum page is the only section of the page that is properly referenced. The preceding sections that describe the product are not properly referenced, and are just product billboards which contain no further information than what you could get from the manufacturer's website.

Please do not delete the criticism section. Repeated reverting is against Wiki rules. You can always request the issue gets moderated instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.139.130 (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

To Mikecraig (and others)... please do not delete or truncate the Criticism section. There are no "POV" personal opinions of the wiki contributors. All comments and incidents are thoroughly cited. The criticism that has been cited is from the major Australian media as well as from non-media alcohol support groups. Therefore, to state that it is just media criticism is incorrect. Each time someone deletes or truncates this section by saying it non-notable or irrelevant, I add more and more references to prove that the criticism comes from multiple sources.203.217.64.50 01:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Mikecraig... Why delete the term "National Rugby League" from the criticism section? At least for the first reference it should be in its full form, otherwise people can't immediately see what the criticism is against (ie Rugby League). For subsequent references, the abbreviated "NRL" is appropriate. Why do you spend so much time shortening the Criticism section, when it is the most thoroughly cited section of the whole page. Wouldn't it be time better spent to find citations for all the unreferenced promotional paragraphs that precede the Criticism section? 203.217.64.50 01:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If people bother to read the previous section regading RUGBY LEAGUE, UNION sponsorship..etc it references the NRL and the "Official Spirit of NRL" so you do not need to change the context of the football code mentioned the section below that.--Mikecraig 01:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello . The purpose of the sectional headings in any Wiki article is so people can jump to the section that interests them. Therefore, not everyone would have read the entire article from top to bottom. At least one reference to "National Rugby League" at the top of the criticism section would be appropriate, so that the reader can see the criticism has something to do with Rugby League, without having to go to other articles. The capitalisation of the word "Bear" is fair enough, though. Also, the part about "almost daily reports" of incidents is a quotation from the Sydney Morning Herald. The word "almost" puts it into perspective, as at some periods in 2007, there has been more than one incident in the same week. The quotation has been cited as coming from the SMH. Meanwhile, the rest of the Bundaberg page is largely uncited. 203.217.64.50 01:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the citation tag for "almost daily reports" statement and italic quotes --Mikecraig 02:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one about some Brisbane bars banning the drink is amusing :) 203.217.64.50 03:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thought that one would be good. --Mikecraig 03:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7 Nov 2007 - I guess you have to be Bundaberg born, like and drink Bundy Rum to understand that Rum was practically a food group to 18th & 19th century English sailors as a respite from poor rations. Bundy was also provided to Australian soldiers from 1899 to 1945 as part of their rations (see "Bundy - A Centenary History"). It improves the taste of any cola!! Razorwiki15 15:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

DATES OF PRODUCTS: I believe that the dates of the productes should be put into a list form by dates. That way everyone who reads this will know in which year each products was made. For example 2010: 2010 Bundaberg 100 Proof, 50% alcohol content, released in Red and Yellow Labels. 2010 Bundaberg "Founding Fathers" 5 year Old, aged in Vat 9. kind of similar to Bundaberg Black 2010 Bundaberg Black Year 2000 - Started in year 2000 and been released 10 years later

2011: Bundaberg Master Distillers - Aged 10 Years & Finished in a small oak vat. Released at the distillery then sent to Bottleshops around Australia. Bundaberg "Watermark" Limited Edition Commemorative Rum - Aged 5 years to "Mark" where the flood water peaked. And each bottle numbered. "The Mark of Resilience". 37.0 Alc/Vol Bundaberg Five - Released 5 June - First 10,000 bottles Numbered, Then released as un-numbered around Australia, a new line of Bundaberg Rum. Bundaberg "Racing" Limited Edition Rum - Released as late as the 9th of July on Sunshine Coast Queensland Australia. Aged five years. "This Limited Eddition blend has been crafted to mark another ingenious moment in the Bundaberg distilling company legacy - the first Sponser to have a V8 Super Car, V8 Ute and an Australian GT Championship Lotus all racing for the same team" Bottles are numbered. 37.0% Als/Vol. This way someone can skip to a year and find the product instead of reading the whole list. SNAKE255202 1652 hours 11/07/2011 (Australian Queensland time) —Preceding undated comment added 06:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Starting cleanup of this article. --Mikecraig 05:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done major cleanup and additions to the article.--Mikecraig 22:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Clean-up" should not include "washing" the wikipedia of controversy, or transforming of an article into an advertising page for the company that makes a product. Please have the courtesy of stating when you make major changes. 212.202.176.51 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article now had work to bring it up to official WP standards. --Mikecraig 22:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "clean-up" work amounts to vandalism. Continually deleting the "criticism" section is vandalism. Deleting sections, while using the description "cleaning up" or "fixing" is vandalism. As I said before, the courteous way to perform edits would be to leave a proper description of what you have done.203.217.64.50 01:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TO whoever wrote the above comment - learn about how to sign your posts as per OFFICIAL WP POLICY. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --Mikecraig 01:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Mikecraig... maybe you'd like to join the discussion about the Criticism Section (in the discussion above this one), rather than under the ambiguous "Clean-up" heading. It would be courteous to join the discussion before deleting things.203.217.64.50 01:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to state that the above critism is worthless garbage that has no relevance to the bundy rum wiki page and will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.125.236 (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much space devoted to products

[edit]

Product info is the responsibility of the company's website. I don't see why such detail should be in Wikipedia 124.168.21.24 18:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's normal information, i don't see a reason against it? Markthemac (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

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) 03:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Distillers.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Distillers.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 24 June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bundaberg Black 1994.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Bundaberg Black 1994.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 24 June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wingslabel.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Wingslabel.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 24 June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royalliquer.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Royalliquer.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 24 June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2008-8.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:2008-8.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 24 June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bundaberg Rum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the archive, replaced with a correct link. Note: they have a legal 18years check on their font page, the new link works for me, but it could be due to a cookie. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bundaberg Rum. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Widely considered one of the worst rums

[edit]

My contribution regarding the perception of the spirit amongst rum drinkers has been removed, on the grounds that it doesn't belong in the leading paragraph. I can understand where this is coming from. Based on the article's current structure, however, I couldn't see a more obvious place to put it. I do think that this is relevant – the drinking public's perception of a drink is not irrelevant, especially when said opinion is near-unanimous. Where do you think this information should go? Should I start a new section of the article?

2001:8003:103B:FC00:6414:821E:8EFB:E7CA (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"owns its own cola-producing facility"

[edit]

I would like to question if there are any sources to verify this information, as I cannot find any mention of such a facility on Bundaberg Rum's website nor any supporting web articles. Additionally, I question whether this sentence is relevant in the opening paragraph to summarise the company, as there are likely more details that would be more pertinent to the business and the core product (rum) itself.

49.187.128.85 (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is this but I don’t know if I would call it a reliable citation. Indeed they may have copied the information from the Wikipedia article. 10:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bundaberg_Rum&oldid=1206476099"