Talk:Bundaberg Rum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bundaberg Rum article.
Article policies
Flag
Portal
 Bundaberg Rum is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland.
Assessment comments

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.

Contents

[edit] Minor 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)

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)


--- 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)

[edit] Images

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)

[edit] Criticism section

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).

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)
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)
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)
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)
Removed the citation tag for "almost daily reports" statement and italic quotes --Mikecraig 02:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The one about some Brisbane bars banning the drink is amusing :) 203.217.64.50 03:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thought that one would be good. --Mikecraig 03:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Cleanup

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

Done major cleanup and additions to the article.--Mikecraig 22:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
"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)

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

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)
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 Image:Wikisigbutton.png 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)
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)

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)

[edit] Too much space devoted to products

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)