Talk:Flaming Dr. Pepper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Cocktails, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to mixed drinks, including cocktails. If you feel this article is substandard, please do not nominate this article for deletion prior to March 1, 2007. The Project members are working very hard to improve the quality of these articles. Please see our Cleanup Project for information about our goals for this article and how you can help. At the conclusion of the Cleanup Project, the Project members will request all remaining substandard articles in the Project be deleted. Premature deletions only hinder our efforts.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 18 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is too short and incomplete to be featured in DYK. I think you may want to add these things to it:

  • Invention of this drink: who? when?
  • Its evolution: early recipe -> current ones (variations)
  • Why it tastes like Dr. Pepper?
  • Trivia: Its lovers and haters (e.g. James Bond loves it; Fred Flintstone hates it)
  • Why didn't people just add vodka to Dr. Pepper? (How about Flaming Coke? Flaming Fanta? Flaming Pepsi? Flaming root beer? Flaming tom kha gai? Flaming vodka??? (Smirnoff + Absolut; taste + brilliant marketing))
  • Markets (all bars in Ethiopia supply it, no one sells this thing in Los Angeles ...)

Wikipedia is not just a cookbook. You may want to expend this article in light of this fact. -- Toytoy 01:23, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

I found this article hilarious. My only gripe is that when someone says to use a "plastic cup" I think of a really low-grade, single-use kind of cup, which probably wouldn't work if the beverage was on fire. --Mr Bound 13:51, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

the plastic cup contains the non flaming beer portion of this beverage. the flaming shot is extinguished by the beer and there is little risk of the plastic cup melting. Alkivar 17:13, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Plastic shouldn't and doesn't have to be used, I've never seen it used myself (use a glass with a thick bottom, found in most bars - glass beer mugs work best).
plastic is recommended because drunks tend to chip the shots when dropping them into a highball glass. take it from this ex-bartender :) Alkivar 01:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I believe the reason that it isn't just vodka and Dr. Pepper is because it is a suprise that it tastes so close to Dr. Pepper. I did a little research and found this page which has this story:
The original Dr. Pepper was first invented in a local night club called "The Goldmine." And the true recipe calls for 3/4 mug of beer (the better the beer the better the taste) or however much it takes to cover the shot glass. Then take a shot glass and fill it 3/4 the way with amaretto and top it off with Everclear (180 proof). The reason it changed is most of the country can't get Everclear so a sutitable substitute had to be found, so 151 was used, which is a more popular alcohol. Then take the shot glass, light it, drop it, drink it. And that is the whole story.
If anyone can validate that, awsome. Also from a Dr Pepper Usenet FAQ (1998)
"Just got back today from the Dublin bottling plant and museum. There has been a lot of debate on what flavor Dr Pepper really is, so I asked Mr. Kloster [Bill Kloster], the plant owner, who has worked in that plant for almost 60 years. According to him, Dr Pepper is a mix of 23 different fruit flavors. The original creator wanted to create a drink that tasted like the smell of a soda shop. When you walked into a soda shop in that day, you smelled all the fruit flavors of the different sodas all mixed into one. So he basically took a bunch of flavors and mixed them, and came up with Dr Pepper. He said Dr Pepper does not and has never had prune juice in it."
I believe the main flavor is cherry, look at a Mr. Pibb can sometime, which is the reason Amaretto is used. Also, I'm giving you the heads up: I'm going to add a suggestion of using a dark beer instead of "beer". Many people suggest this, and that is how I tried it the first time. JoeHenzi 08:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"I believe the main flavor is cherry, which is the reason Amaretto is used." that makes no sense as Amaretto is an ALMOND flavored alcohol. Alkivar 01:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
While that may be true, many people find the tastes and aromas of cherries and almonds to be similar. Recall, if you will, that both are members of the genus prunus. Along with almonds and cherries, another member is the plum. A prune is a dried plum, and this is probably the origination of the legend that Dr. Pepper contains prune juice! (Science trumps voodoo any day.)JD79 15:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Misplaced article

I think this article is misplaced. It shouldn't be in wikipedia. I suggest to remove this article and:

1-Move all the article with the recipe to the Wikicookbook

2-redirect this article to a subitem in the article Cocktail, with just a reference to Faming dr.Pepper

--Alexandre Van de Sande 16:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bad cocktails

I randomly visited about a dozen cocktail pages. They are ALL as bad as this article. Blue Hawaiian even redirects to cocktail. A unified cookbook interface will be great. Otherwise, a long page with all recipes will still be useful. -- Toytoy 18:00, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Flaming Dr. Pepper was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

[edit] Flaming Dr. Pepper

I think this article is misplaced. It shouldn't be in wikipedia. I suggest to remove this article and:

1-Move all the article with the recipe to the sister Wikicookbook

2-redirect this article to a subitem in the article Cocktail, with just a reference to Faming dr.Pepper and a link to the cookbook

--Alexandre Van de Sande 16:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Allow me to cite Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not: "when writing an article about fried rice, don't give "A simple recipe for fried rice."...Instead, write an article about what is commonly included in a fried rice recipe, the history of fried rice, types of fried rice, how the Chinese and Japanese versions differ, etc." I believe that the article deserves a place on Wikipedia...not only did it appear on the main page (which may not a reason in itself, but it shows that it's interesting and maybe a bit notable, too), but it also gives an example of where it has been used, and some interesting information (it contains no Dr. Pepper). Besides, if we put this article in the cocktail article, it'll eventually become too bloated to be conrolled. But maybe it does have a bit to little information- I would support sending it to RFE, and I might support labelling it a stub, since it doesn't have enough information about the drink itself. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 22:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Wasn't this on Did you know? Why? At any rate, Keep if someone can explain why there's a period in "Dr. Pepper." Do the drinkers of it not realize Dr Pepper has been without a period for decades? Or is this the whole point (because it contains none)? In all seriousness, I do think this has enough facts to keep it in the wikipedia, although it's not a great article. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 00:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lariano It was worth enough to be listed on the title page on Oct. 18th, which, I think, should qualify it as a somewhat worthy encyclopedia article.
  • Keep - not just a recipe; it actually describes something about the drink. Ian Pugh 05:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gamaliel 05:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep People who suggest that things be transwikied need to be aware that Wikibooks may not want them. There is an active cookbook group there, and one of the things they are actively doing is deleting recipes that they don't feel are up to snuff. There have been some misunderstandings as a result. Be aware that sending something to Wikibooks is not just a passive refactoring of information. It is a submission to a different Wiki with different people, different standards, different customs, and different process from ours. If we want to keep something, we need to keep it. There have been unpleasant misunderstandings in which people have thought that letting a recipe be transwikied and linked was a simple refactoring and that the recipe would continue to be available, only to find that the link has gone dead. In borderline cases, this makes me lean toward keeping articles that contain recipes and keeping the recipes in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • If it's not wanted in the project for the only place it might belong, then people can keep it on their own webpage. It certainly doesn't belong here. We shouldn't be accepting stuff outside of our scope merely because we're afraid it won't end up somewhere else. --Improv 15:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Just to clairify the situation, to my knowldge Wikibooks has deleted 1 recipe, and is currently discussing deleting another 1. The cookbook has over 200 recipes in the index, so less than 1% are being deleted because of unsuitability (a few are also possible copyvios, but they'd be deleted no matter which project they were on). Additionally, the two that have been voted on at vfd over there were not transwikied to wikibooks from the 'pedia, but are/were original Wikibooks' contributions (yes, there are a few of those). One was posted by a vandal that has recieved a 1 year ban for repeated vandalism, and the admin cleaning up after him speedied it, it was undeleted at wikibooks' VfU as an out of process deletion, and relisted at VfD and deleted. The other was posted by a known "problem user" (aka "Troll"), but not a simple vandal. The recipe completely fails a google and yahoo test. There is no systematic wholescale deletion of recipes that get transfered over to wikibooks. Having said that, several wikibookians are somewhat upset that pages get dumped into wikibooks without consideration of if they're suitable to our project, and possible additions to b:Wikibooks:What Wikibooks is not are being considered to cover content that is dumped there but doesn't really fit the project. Oh, I have no opinion on this deletion debate. Gentgeen 00:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I've finally concluded that I've been a jerk about this. I apologize. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Recipe. JFW | T@lk 18:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Recipe: Wikibooks has a cookbook. Wikipedia is encyclopedia space. Geogre 19:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete. Notability-by-association-to-fancruft is too far a stretch. -- WOT 19:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Intrigue 20:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Recipe. Delete. RickK 21:13, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete RickK instead. GRider 21:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Personal attacks can get you banned from editing. RickK 05:18, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks —siroχo 23:29, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep
  • Keep at minimum add this information to the Dr Pepper article, notable because it has the same name as a very popular beverage, and notable because it contains no dr Pepper, and notable because it inspired a simpsons episode. (it's at least as notable as where Professor Jonathon Frink's name came from, IMO) This was a 'did you know' a few days ago. Where is the article? I can't find it for some reason... is it already deleted? whoever deleted it left a few dead links around. What about other cocktails like Martini? or Depth charge (cocktail) HEY! Is someone drinking them?Pedant 23:30, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
    • I rolled it back to the article with content, I agree it's very inappropriate to delete before this vote is finished. Shane King 23:38, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is not just a recipe, it contains at least two non recipe facts (it contains no Dr Pepper, and it inspired the "Flaming Moes" Simpsons episode). Shane King 23:38, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete after moving recipe. The facts, while amusing, aren't important and can go in the cookbook. --cuiusquemodi 02:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Some cookbook material also belongs in Wikipedia, though the criteria seem blurred in some minds. If there is social history, if there is context, if there is some cultural connection beyond the recipe itself, then it belongs in Wikipedia: barbecue, catsup etc. Martini cocktail clearly belongs. Here, I dunno. Especially since we can't mention its "blue collar" context. --Wetman 02:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just on general inclusionist principles. crazyeddie 08:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Webtender. — Gwalla | Talk 19:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Recipe. infectbda Oct 21, 2004
  • Keep. Not only is it more than just a recipe (although it should probably be expanded), but it's given me some killer stories.--TheGrza 05:39, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. mcpusc 10:56, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wiki-books or the wiki cookbook (if there is one)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 10:24, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Recipes and/or food descriptions are not encyclopedic. Transwiki if useful. It would be very cool to have a literal wikicookbook/wikifood that would handle food-related things in their entirety. While I think they don't belong at all to wikipedia, and think that wikibooks is an unfortunate comprimise, keeping the resource around in some form would be nice. --Improv 15:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica is not too high and mighty to have articles on Brandy, Cognac, Liqueurs, Curacoa ("CURACOA, a liqueur, chiefly manufactured in Holland. It is relatively simple in composition, the predominating flavour being obtained from the dried peel of the Curacoa orange. The method of preparation is in principle as follows. The peel is first softened by maceration..."), Bun (700 words, "A small cake, usually sweet and round. In Scotland the word is used for a very rich spiced type of cake and in the north of Ireland for a round loaf of ordinary bread..."), Couscous, Pudding ("a dish consisting of boiled flour enclosing or containing meat, vegetables or fruit, or of batter, rice, sago or other farinaceous foods boiled or baked with milk and eggs. Properly a pudding should be one boiled in a cloth or bag. There are countless varieties, of which the most familiar are the Christmas plum-pudding, the Yorkshire pudding and the suet pudding...) Steak, and a 24,000-byte long article on "Cookery." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] It's "Dr Pepper", not "Dr. Pepper"....

Yeah: there is no period in Dr Pepper.

71.235.37.194 03:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to WikiBooks: Bartending

The linked article contains a totally different drink, with no fire or everclear/baracardi 151. So I removed it for now.

[edit] Simpsons

Made myself a Flaming Dr Pepper last night. Very nice. Anyway I'm pretty sure this wasn't the inspiration for the Simpsons episode as there are a number of flaming cocktails and this one seems one of the least similar.

I'm with this guy. The Flaming Moe is made completely differently. It does not have a shot dropped in it, it tastes horrible until set on fire and it has completely different ingredients. What was the basis for stating the Flaming Moe is based on a Flaming Dr Pepper? The only thing they seem to have in common is the fact that you set them on fire, and there's more than one flaming drink in existance. --Teddywithfangs 04:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/l/a/Talk%7EFlaming_Dr._Pepper_8684.html"