Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Beverages Task Force/style/measurements

Integral or fractional?

Having decided (below) on relative measurements, there is one further issue. Some ratios, such as

6cl X
1.5cl Y
0.75cl Z

Do not easily convert into parts. In this example the simplest whole-number ratio is

24 parts X
6 parts Y
3 parts Z

However, if we are allowed to use half parts, we get the much simpler

4 parts X
1 part Y
½ part Z

Hence I am in favour of permitting half parts, but no other fractions (maybe 1½ would also be useful, but nothing stupid like ⅔ or ⅜. Comments? Happy-melon 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have something in the works that might help or confuse the issue. :-) I am planning on creating a nifty template where you enter in a value in cl, ml, fl oz, or measures, and the template displays measures, cl, fl oz, and (this is the tricky one) parts. The parts part (the calculation of parts) is the hard part (ugh), because I really need a LOWEST or LEAST function (a function that returns the lowest value in a group of numbers) to determine the starting point for parts. All the rest of the conversions would be pretty straight forward. I am going to take liberties with the measurements, and assume that 1 measure = 1.5 cl = 0.5 fl oz, and not worry about rounding differences or differences between American and British fluid ounces. Now, I may be wrong, but essentially if you take 2 measures of AAA and 3 measures of BBB, then it really doesn't matter if your jigger is in any particular unit or not. As long as you don't mix between units in the same recipe, the proportions should be right, even if the numbers do not calculate exactly correctly. The rounding does get somewhat off the larger the amounts 6 measures rounded is 9 cl or 3 fl oz, but in reality, assuming a 1.5cl "measure", you're actually looking at 3.17 UK or 3.04 US, or roughly an 1/8th of an ounce difference. I've been looking at a lot of the recipes over at WikiBooks (and they are generally in as bad or even worse shape than the ones here anymore), and it is pretty easy to tell the number of measures that are contained in the drink. From there, it's pretty easy to calculate the parts. If all the recipes are in parts, the reverse conversion is much, much harder. Maybe it's my weak math skills, but I think that measures is the simplest form we could use, and it seems internationally comprehensible. It also overcomes my concern of not having a clue as to the overall size/volume of the drink in parts (the teaspoon vs. gallons issue). Also, visualizing half measures and even quarter-measures is pretty straight-forward. It's easy to imagine filling a jigger only 1/2 or 1/4 of the way. Fractional parts, while resulting in easier-to-deal-with-numbers, are very difficult (for me at least) to visualize. So, I'd suggest we use measures as the base unit, and allow down to a half measure. This will also allow me to complete the templates much, much more quickly, and we can start using them right away in the articles. Using your earlier examples with the proposed output of the new template would look something like this:

4 measures (6 cl, 2 fl oz) X
1 measure (1.5 cl, ½ fl oz) Y
½ measure (0.75 cl, ¼ fl oz) Z

How does that look, and how does the idea sound? If I had to also include parts, it would be with the huge part numbers (24/6/3) as shown in your second example due to the constraints of the basic math functions available (if I can even do parts at all). --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 10:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between a 'measure' and a 'part'?? The way we should be using it, the 'measure' is an undefined unit the bartender uses, be it a shot glass, a thimble or an oil drum. That's exactly the same as a 'part'. With either one, if the bartender is mixing for a single person, he'll use a shot-glass-sized 'measure/part'. If he's mixing for a regiment, out come the oil drums. The difference is purely semantic, and IMHO "parts" sounds better than "measures". If you give a "measure" a fixed conversion to cl or fl oz, then it becomes an absolute unit which we've just decided not to use!! The only advantage that an "absolute measure" offers over cl or fl oz is that people on both sides of the Atlantic will be equally confused!!! We've agreed to use relative units, meaning that 'parts' and 'measures' have exactly the same meaning, just pronounced differently!

The point of giving it in parts rather than absolute measurements (except where the IBA have specified them) is:

a) to facilitate easy modification of a recipe to different sized glasses - what happens if a Pina Colada is served in a highball or even beverage glass (both of which I've seen)? They're different sizes, so for the beverage glass the bartender will probably have to double the volumes anyway. Much easier to do that if everything is in relative measurements anyway.
b) To prevent recipe-makers with bizzarely sized glasses from giving recipes that are going to overflow all over the bar if they're poured into a standard glass. Of course the IBA recipes are an exception to this, hence we use their absolute values.
c) so that if someone does have a bizzarely oversized glass they want to mix a cocktail into they can do it easily wihtout having to make up loads of standard sized cocktails and pouring them into the big glass!!!

Obviously the last is a somewhat asinine point, but it serves to prove the principle of why the consensus was for relative measurements. An "absolute measure", equalling 1.5cl or whatever, is not a relative unit, however international it might be. Personally I'd find it harder to work in 'measures' than cl or fl oz. Conversion from 'parts' to any absolute measurement is, in fact, an absolute doddle. How many parts total in the recipe? Using the integral parts example above, it'll be 33 parts. How large is the glass? A beer glass holds 330ml, which means that each part is 1cl. A highball glass holds 20cl, so each part would then be 20/33=0.6cl. If you're serving your cocktail in a shot glass for whatever reason, each part is 4.4/33=0.13cl. Simply count the parts, work out the volume of the glass in the absolute units of your choice, and divide one by the other to get a volume for each part in those same units.

So the way we have to use a 'measure' is as a direct synonym for "parts". Personally, 'part' sounds better in the context. Given that, it is indeed easy to visualise half-filling or quarter-filling a jigger, or equally half- or quarter-filling a bath! I can foresee few situations where a quarter part would simplify calculations, but many where a half measure would help.

with regards to your proposed template, I fear you may be inadvertently overcomplicating the operation. While such a template would, in principle, be useful, there would be issues with implementation (namely that only you and I would have a clue what to do with it!!) and a whole new argument as to its precise layout (which comes first, cl or fl oz? Gas and petrol all over again!). Not to mention the fact that someone would have to go back through all the infobox templates already created changing all the measurements. I feel that the best implementation is that which we're using now: simplest parts measurements with cl values for IBA officials. Given that there is some subjectivity as to the 'best' parts ratio (compare the examples above) and I think that a template would be extremely difficult to code and implement, and not offer many tangible advantages over common sense.

Well that's my tuppence worth (bloody hell that was good value for money! What an epistle!!). Comments?? Happy-melon 15:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relative or absolute

First I feel it is necessary to decide on whether to use relative or absolute measurements. For instance:

Pall Mall - 1½ fl oz gin, ½ fl oz sweet vermouth, ½ fl oz dry vermouth, ½ fl oz white cream de cacao
Hairy Virgin - 40% rum, 20% Orange-flavored liquor, 40% apple juice (Variations)
Pamake - 3 parts sake and 1 part PAMA pomegranate flavored liquor.

The first example is absolute, the second two are relative. Please indicate which you would prefer. The poll will close at 23:59 on ~~Monday Jan 15th~~ Wednesday Jan 31st unless there is a lack of consensus or objection. Happy-melon 22:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see this extended to 23:59 UTC on January 31, 2007, just like the proposed name change. It might be just my brain having troubles coming to grips with this topic, but I think a little more discussion and more input is a good idea. I'll leave it for Happy-melon to decide since he made the proposal and seems more comfortable about all this than I am. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 06:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, although if there isn't a bit more activity I'm going to get very bored waiting around.... Happy-melon 13:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in favour of relative measurements

PARTS - I suport parts as an international standard above petty disputes between metric and imperial measurement systems. Happy-melon 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PARTS - I'd vote for parts (I'm British). Remember also that the Imperial fl oz and the US fl oz are not quite the same size. 86.136.252.181 03:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~PARTS~~ - Parts seem to be the most flexible and universal measurement. The big advantage of a specific measurement is that it gives a clue as to how large and how potent to expect the beverage after it is made. If I used buckets instead of shot glasses (as a silly example), the drink would end up quite different. I think that including the standard glass used for the cocktail is important if we only give parts. Common sense will help to pick appropriate measurements if you know it all has to fit into an old fashioned glass vs. a Collins glass, vs. a shot glass. It could still get tricky if ice fills some of the volume, but then again, we are not a bartender's manual, so we shouldn't sweat it too much. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 05:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm temporarily deciding to be undecided on parts. See my comment below to understand why. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 06:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PARTS - I support parts because it is much more understandable, globally. As well as that its easier, and allows for a variety of sizes of the drink, removing any presumption regarding the "size" of the drink. Jacobshaven3 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in favour of absolute measurements

centilitres (cl) - For IBA Official Cocktails only, and in addition to parts. I know it sounds like I am flip-flopping, but I'm not really. Since the cocktail recipes in the IBA competitions are essentially international standards, I think it is only right to include the standard measurements. Adding parts is useful for metric-deficient folks (like me) to interpret the amounts. See Amaretto#Beverages for examples. The Cafe Zürich is not an IBA cocktail, but I formatted it like the IBA ones on the same page. The others are IBAs. If Cafe Zürich were an article of its own, I would have left it as "parts" and not included the measurements. Though in this case, knowing that 3 parts is only 1½ fl oz does help put things into better perspective. Okay, yeah, I guess I am a gutless flip-flopper at times. Ha-ha. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 07:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in favor of the majority decision

AYE - I rarely drink, and these ratios, parts, measures, centilitres, American fluid ounces, British fluid ounces, dashes, teaspoons, and whatnot are all like a bad memory of a math class. I hereby vote to agree with whatever the majority decides so long as I don't have to do any of the conversions except for easy ones like "equal parts" or "2 parts / 1 parts". :-) I would like to point out that I just updated Caipirinha, which is an IBA Official Cocktail, and they used both centilitres and teaspoons in those instructions. *sigh* I still think that no matter how IBA lists it, we should list their measurements verbatim, but add our own standards proportionate to theirs. This makes it much more clear that the IBA standard is a true standard, and it reduces the potential for edit wars based on how strong a person likes his or her drink. You can argue proportions in any cocktail, but you can't argue about the proportions established by an international organization. This gives legitimacy (notability and credibility), and helps defend against claims that we are spamming Wikipedia with recipes, when we use international standards as defining attributes of the article's topic (i.e., the drink). If we use only our own agreed upon measurements, replacing the IBA standard ones, we no longer really are listing the IBA standard but our own. Outside of official cocktails, I could care less. I'm going to go back to something easier now like esoteric template designs. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 11:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Questions

Comment - Please see Talk:Tequila Sunrise (cocktail) for a related comment by an anonymous user. I faced the same problem I frequently face in these situations: how do I convert one measurement to parts? If the amounts are obviously equal or easy multiples of two from each other, then it's no problem. The original recipe called for 4 fl oz, 2 fl oz, and ¾ fl oz. I am fine with the first two (2 parts, 1 part), but that ¾ throws me. Add to the fact that that recipe did not match the IBA standard amounts (4.5 cl, 9 cl, and 1.5 cl, which convert to 1½ oz, 3 oz, and ½ oz). I suppose that means that the recipe is 6 parts, 9 parts, and 1 part, but that still seems clunky. Isn't 1½ oz a "measure"? If so, then 1 measure, 2 measures, and ⅓ measure actually make more sense to me in this case than parts do. I'm thinking I want to change my vote to undecided -- at least until my head stops hurting thinking about this. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 06:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4 fl oz, 2 fl oz, and ¾ fl oz can be converted to parts very easily if you use elementary ratios. 4:2:0.75 = 16:8:3, multiplying each term by four. This is the simplest whole-number ratio in this case. There is no reason why we couldn't express it as "8 parts X, 4 parts Y and 1½ parts Z", although three quarters seems a little too obscure. Your analysis of "6 parts, 9 parts and 1 part" is entirely correct, and sounds perfectly reasonable if it is sorted in descending order. If the consensus arrives at relative measures, as it currently appears, we must decide on a standard, perhaps allowing only integral or half measures. Notice that the meaning of "parts" and "measures" here is entirely equivalent, so at the moment can be used interchangeably (although it's something else we'd want to standardise). Happy-melon 13:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Willscrlt's observations in the "votes in favour" are not all that off base (albeit a bucket? :) Many of these concoctions are not necessarily made in single servings, but en masse! I'm thinking of anything made in a blender. The "Parts" can be much more helpful there (start w/1 litre = 1 part and work down percentage-wise from there). I do agree with Happy-melon as well, insofar that "1 part" would be the minimum measure (except for "a dash of..." or the like), and the percentages worked up from that. SkierRMH 07:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the way I feel after trying to figure these things out, a bucket sounds just about right. :-) If we go with parts, 1 part sounds like a good minimum. If we go with measures, I could see going down to ½ measure or even ⅓ measure if that is reasonable in mixed drinks. I'm still confused (and maybe measuringly challenged), but how can measures and parts be equal? I thought a measure was equal to a "jigger", which is equal to a "shot", which is equal to the amount held in a standard shot glass, which is equal to 1½ fl oz (though I'm not sure if that is American or British). A part, I thought was just a ratio. In the above example of "8 parts X, 4 parts Y and 1½ parts Z", I don't see how that could be used to make a drink for one person. Yes, I can see it in a blenderful of the drink, but are we writing for people likely to mix up a huge batch of the stuff, or a small amount? Can we list both if and when both makes sense? Another thought is to list the yield or servings that a recipe makes if more than a single. If the yield is 8 servings, and you only want one, just divide by 8 (oh the math again!). But wouldn't it be simply to base the measurements for one drink and multiply up in size? Maybe we need an article that helps people like me figure out how all these measurements work. We could even have a table of common drink measurements (cl, US fl oz, UK fl oz, tsp, etc.) so that people can easily translate from whatever we choose into their own preferred method. We could include a link to such a page in the new infobox we are designing, and have the link next to the ingredients section for easy reference. Please understand that I'm really not inept in math and ratios and all (I've taken pre-calculus, though I won't tell you my grade), but pretty much anything other than fluid ounces seems pretty confusing (darn U.S. school system for never adequately teaching kids to use the metric system). Honestly, I think any standard we pick will confuse someone, so a page on Mixed drink measurements or Bartending measurements or something along those lines would be most helpful, especially if written for laymen in encyclopedic fashion (we don't want to cross into the Wikibooks b:Bartending manual's turf, though they don't have such a section, either). --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now closed. The consensus is for relative measurements.

Standard units of measurement

This is an archived record of discussion on this page prior to the start of the poll. Please do not edit it.

Is there any conseus as to whether the description should deal in absolute quantities (eg 1½ fl oz gin, ¾ fl oz vermouth) or relative quantities (eg one part vermouth to two parts gin). I would suggest the latter, as cocktails can of course be mixed in any quantity. Happy-melon 19:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is currently that there is no consensus. It does not appear to be a deliberate thing, but rather that the recipes are provided in various styles, and nobody standardizes them into one style or another. The International Bartenders Association's standard is to have everything in centilitres. While that is probably fine in parts of the world that use metric measurements, it totally confounds most of the people in the U.S. (we are so backwards and stubborn about that). Likewise, I'm sure that fluid ounces confounds the rest of the world (made worse by the fact that most people submitting recipes are lazy and just list "ounces" or "oz", which is for weights not volumes). So, parts or percentages are therefore the method that seem most useful. Wikibooks prefers parts or shots. I have read elsewhere, though I can't remember where at the moment, that shots is confusing in some places, since that appears to vary, too. So, some method of proportions would seem best. In fact, in the Margarita article, the measurements are all in ratios.

That being said, I personally get all muddled up trying to convert drink recipes from, say, fluid ounces to parts, unless the parts are equal, in which case I change the measurements to "equal parts" (which is probably one reason you see the mixture of measurements in the list). So, I'm probably not the best person to do the conversions (or we might end up with some really odd tasting drinks!).

Whatever standard is selected, I think it should be fairly universally understood (which probably leaves out fl oz and cl), and very simple to scale up or down in size. The exception is when listing an IBA Official Cocktail recipe, which should remain in centilitres, probably with whatever standard measurement we choose in parentheses. See Amaretto for example.

Sticking with parts would make trans-wiki copying of recipes much easier on the Wikibooks folks, so if I had to choose one,right now, that would be my first choice. But, I'm no bartender or mixologist. I welcome any other views or thoughts. --Willscrlt 00:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote for parts (I'm British). Remember also that the Imperial fl oz and the US fl oz are not quite the same size. 86.136.252.181 03:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would I, and remember what a silly (and arbitrary) unit of measurement the fluid ounce really is: the volume taken up by one Avoirdupois ounce of pure water, in air, at 16.7 degrees Centigrade. Incomprehensibility doesn't get better than that! I definitely support parts as an easy middle ground between metric and imperial (in all it's many forms). Happy-melon 11:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (like this ~~~~), since it helps keep discussions straight. :-) The only problem I have with "parts" is that I am lousy at making the conversions. If those in favor of parts are willing to help by doing the conversion, then it sounds like a good option to me. I don't think we really have a consensus yet, but I'm just trying to see if anyone is willing to help implement that change if it is chosen. Even better is if you'd be willing to help keep an eye on the various pages, and make conversions as new drinks are added and edited. I'll do my best for the easy ones, but when things start getting into sixths and eighths, I start losing it. :-) --Willscrlt 14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive ends. Normal discussions to continue below