This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirits, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spirits or Distilled beverages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritsWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritsTemplate:WikiProject SpiritsSpirits articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Spirits WikiProject task list:
This list is transcluded from the tasks page, to edit it click here.
@Beyond My Ken: Please explain why you moved the Refimprove template to the References section, given the instructions at Template:Refimprove: "According to MOS:LAYOUT, maintenance templates such as this one ought be placed after hatnotes, at the start of the article. That placement is supported by consensus obtained in an RfC at Template talk:Refimprove#RfC: Location of Tag." Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
THe template makes more sense there, and does not get in the way of the reader of the article, who we are serving. Please remember that MOS is not policy, and is not mandatory. We are allowed to use our brains and our judgement. BMK (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we just remove it then? It's a pretty short article, and what's there seems well sourced except for one statement that has a cn tag. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good by me, thanks. BMK (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
