![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
There are quite a few statements in this article with the "citation needed" link.
Here's a "source" for the popularity of collecting pre-prohibition shot glasses: http://www.pre-pro.com/ I'm not up on the standards for citing sources. Hopefully someone can use this to either properly cite something or give me a link to the page describing proper citation practices (I looked and couldn't find it...) -- Theeldest ( talk) 08:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's different in metric countries, and if it is feel free to add the old numbers back in, but a standard shot is most definately 1.5 ounces (~45 cc), a "pony shot" is 1 ounce (~30 cc), and a double shot is 3 ounces (about 90 cc). I have no clue why the "ounce shot" is listed at 50cc, because 1 ounce is about 30 cc. I've got dozens and dozens of shot glasses, all are 1.5 ounces. And I have found a beautiful Shot Glass Display Case to showcase them. The website is http://www.displaygifts.com/shotglass_displaycases.html. Here's a couple more of reference other than my experience: http://www.drinknation.com/glasses/Shot-glass http://www.webtender.com/db/glass/2
The stupidity of using non-metric units is that no one knows that they differ from place to place and confusion reigns. In you statement about the difference between the British and US pints, you should also have mentioned that the ounces vary as well. 16 US ounces don't equal 16 UK ounces. The same is true for 20 ounces. 16 US ounces (1 US pint) is only 473 ml, while 16 UK ounces is 454 mL, a difference of 19 mL. 20 ounces US is 591 mL, where as 20 ounces UK is 568 mL, a difference of 23 mL. A US gallon is 128 US ounces, and a UK gallon is 160 UK ounces. (2007-10-13 23:00)
Lucky for the UK and others, the UK versions are being phased out of existence, except for the pint which is limited to beers and ales in pubs and milk in returnable bottles. The metric units are the same everywhere, so there is no chance of being confused or misled. (2007-10-13 23:00)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.74.197 ( talk) 03:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone changed the page to something nasty, so I changed it back, I wasn't sure if there was a revert button, so I just copy/pasted the previous code into a new edit. :)
The contention that a double in the US needs attribution -- I can find a manufacturer (Libbey) who makes 2 ounce doubles -- Dizneydude 02:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be much more helpful if there was a scale included for scale. Who knows how big or small this ****ing pencil is. — Daniel FR 07:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This sentence has a hanging participle and needs to be rephrased: When travelling, there may be shotglasses sporting national flags, or local tourist attractions. When it is read literally, it sounds very silly. Rintrah 05:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the etymology section since, frankly, I think it is highly dubious. But here is my further rationale: 1. There are no sources listed. 2. I couldn't find any sources online myself. 3. The section doesn't mention who did this (i.e. the spitting) or when. 4. The use of dedicated glasses seems pretty fancy for this sort of thing, but what do I know. 5. It doesn't explain how "shot glasses" for spat out shots became glasses for drinking out of. 6. Shot also means "dose" or "small amount". I think it's probably that "shot glass" is called such because it holds a small amount of liquid. It could be that this meaning of shot derives from its use in "shot glass", but the other way seems more likely given the limited evidence here. AliaGemma 12:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Next time, ask the community before arbitrarily deleting a section of text. Now the etymology section contains an equally "highly dubious" and unsourced origin for the name. I agree that some research is in order, but let's not just randomly start deleting text from articles, please. 24.153.118.129 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Now that this article has some knowlegeable content, it needs to be edited consistent with Wikipedia standards. Do the contributors want to do that themselves, or will they welcome some help? -- Mukrkrgsj 02:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Great! I've already rewritten the intro, and done a little cleanup. The main job will be to edit the conversational, "Discussion"-type text you posted to the main article, and clean up some links and references. You might want to add some more info about collectible shot glasses. -- Mukrkrgsj 02:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is still some confusion about the origins of both the modern thick-walled shot glass or shotglass, and the words themselves. It doesn't help that pre-pro.com calls pre-Prohibition whiskey glasses "shot glasses":
I made several changes to the introduction; and I just cut the sentence, "The shotglass probably was born in America in the early 1900s."
I don't know who added the "citation needed" tags, but the intro to the Sizes section still needs editing to eliminate the confusion. Mukrkrgsj 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no source to point to but I always assumed that "shot" was derived from the same line as Snaps and Schnapps. I see no mention of that here. Any sources that point that way? VermillionBird ( talk) 04:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I added the citation needed for 'size has never been defined'. My impression is that can't say that, because it's original research WP:OR (we are implying that WE did an exhaustive search and could not find any definition for the official volume of a shot glass). So what we need is a reliable source WP:V that says it's not been defined. It's a pretty bold statement to say that something has never happened, isn't it? Thanks for asking. Jethero Talk 04:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it wrong to cite the source in the section? Also, since when has wikipedia been cited? 24.14.72.182 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone should fix this. 22:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Seriously. I love it when Wikipedia suddenly goes into the first person. Kensai Max 04:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Tagged section as original research. Propose deletion of section? Origins is not the most relevant or useful section in this article. Why not have an origins section for every word in the encyclopedia? Save it for the OED. The Wilschon 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the origin section should stay. Origin is the most modified part of the Article, which indicates that people are obviously interested in the subject, and have differing ideas about what the origin is. The difference between this article and an entry in the OED is that the origins section of this article is about where an object came from, not the origins of a word. The origin of an object is included in many wikipedia articles; the origins of the automobile is included in the automobile article, the origins of the movie is included in the movie article. As for the OED, it does not contain an origin for the word.
The exact date and location of the invention of the shotglass will probably never be known. But just because the origin is nebulous, that does not mean that we know nothing. We know the time period in which it was created, and the circumstances that lead to its creation. We can use the information that we do know to refute "well known" (but incorrect) theories.
I would think that wikipedia would want to have articles about subjects that people are interested in, and on a subject where the information cannot be found in other sources (such as the OED) -- Dizneydude 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The phrase 'a google book search returns' is completely inappropriate 131.111.243.37 ( talk) 15:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This is only another theory at this time that may be able to be verified that the Shot Glass was originated from Otto Schott and should be spelled correctly, "Schott Glass". I first heard this from a Carl Ziess representative from Germany in the Optical industry and may be able to be verified in Germany.-- ravtux 09:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Reading the article, I came to think of the origin of the word. In a sence it's touched upon in the bottom of the article, when referring to the small amount shot glasses contain. I suggest looking into the word short. Short glass. This both refer to the size of the glass and the amount it thusly contains - a short amount. It's just as likely, that "short" became "shot" as "Schott" did. Would this be an interesting trail to follow?-- Nwinther 12:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there any point in having this image?! resolution is crap, and it doesn't even LOOK like a shot glass. Unless someone has a reason why its there - I'm gonna delete it. It adds nothing to the article IMHO. Skippy ( talk) 04:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
First, a disclaimer: I don't know nuthin' about nuthin' when it comes to this subject. That's why I'm putting this on the talk page, and not making an edit.
That being said, it seems to me that the sentence "Contrary to public opinion, grappa is sipped from the shot glass, not downed in one gulp." can't but be wrong. It seems to me to be whatchamacallit, Americocentric or something. (Wow my spell-checker accepts "whatchamacallit.") Surely if Italian public opinion were that it's to be downed in one gulp, that would be the accepted procedure. Therefore I suggest changing it to something like "Contrary to public opinion in the United States," or "Contrary to public opinion outside Italy." Or something. Anyone got a problem with that? I welcome your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.1.118 ( talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to say that the whole original article seems to be copied word for word from answers.com ( http://www.answers.com/topic/shot-glass),or visa-versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.95.17.9 ( talk) 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
HElp me - In NZ Would you come into a bar and say please can i have a single shot of say bourbon and expect 15ml or 30ml? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.72.11 ( talk) 09:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Anyone have any views on merging this article with Jigger (bartending). That stub article seems incredibly pointless on its own and very internationally unrepresentative, and I'm certain it could be merged into this one. Cheers. ★ KEYS★ (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've just had a good hack at some of the explanations. (My apologies if I trashed your stuff) There's little or no external support for any of them even existing outside this article - let alone being supported by the facts. I have however removed some of the "debunking" text, mainly because without references it's just piling OR onto OR. Oh, and I found some nice earlier refs predating the (vague) OED one. Snori ( talk) 05:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
35 ml is more common in Scotland as well, and 35 is known as a "half" rather than a single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.95.1 ( talk) 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Canada still seems to be confused about units, all these years after metrication. There is a source at Standard drink that says the standard drink in Canada is 13.6 grams. [1]. But it also says this is "44 ml (1.5 ounce) of 40% ... spirits", which would imply US ounces??
I wanted to fix the excess precision in the table; I guarantee no one defines the shot as 42.62 ml. But now I'm not sure what to change it to. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 12:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been trying to measure all our liquers at the bar and I dont really know how to even start.. can anyone help me take the first step??? Finah Drua ( talk) 07:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I have removed a table and some text from the Jigger section. The product catalog is unsourced and does not belong here per WP:NOTCATALOG. The rest of the text seems to be mostly WP:OR. The one source cited just says "during and immediately following Prohibition, recipes often carried measurements that are not common today." This does not support the text. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 20:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
There are quite a few statements in this article with the "citation needed" link.
Here's a "source" for the popularity of collecting pre-prohibition shot glasses: http://www.pre-pro.com/ I'm not up on the standards for citing sources. Hopefully someone can use this to either properly cite something or give me a link to the page describing proper citation practices (I looked and couldn't find it...) -- Theeldest ( talk) 08:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's different in metric countries, and if it is feel free to add the old numbers back in, but a standard shot is most definately 1.5 ounces (~45 cc), a "pony shot" is 1 ounce (~30 cc), and a double shot is 3 ounces (about 90 cc). I have no clue why the "ounce shot" is listed at 50cc, because 1 ounce is about 30 cc. I've got dozens and dozens of shot glasses, all are 1.5 ounces. And I have found a beautiful Shot Glass Display Case to showcase them. The website is http://www.displaygifts.com/shotglass_displaycases.html. Here's a couple more of reference other than my experience: http://www.drinknation.com/glasses/Shot-glass http://www.webtender.com/db/glass/2
The stupidity of using non-metric units is that no one knows that they differ from place to place and confusion reigns. In you statement about the difference between the British and US pints, you should also have mentioned that the ounces vary as well. 16 US ounces don't equal 16 UK ounces. The same is true for 20 ounces. 16 US ounces (1 US pint) is only 473 ml, while 16 UK ounces is 454 mL, a difference of 19 mL. 20 ounces US is 591 mL, where as 20 ounces UK is 568 mL, a difference of 23 mL. A US gallon is 128 US ounces, and a UK gallon is 160 UK ounces. (2007-10-13 23:00)
Lucky for the UK and others, the UK versions are being phased out of existence, except for the pint which is limited to beers and ales in pubs and milk in returnable bottles. The metric units are the same everywhere, so there is no chance of being confused or misled. (2007-10-13 23:00)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.74.197 ( talk) 03:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone changed the page to something nasty, so I changed it back, I wasn't sure if there was a revert button, so I just copy/pasted the previous code into a new edit. :)
The contention that a double in the US needs attribution -- I can find a manufacturer (Libbey) who makes 2 ounce doubles -- Dizneydude 02:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be much more helpful if there was a scale included for scale. Who knows how big or small this ****ing pencil is. — Daniel FR 07:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This sentence has a hanging participle and needs to be rephrased: When travelling, there may be shotglasses sporting national flags, or local tourist attractions. When it is read literally, it sounds very silly. Rintrah 05:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the etymology section since, frankly, I think it is highly dubious. But here is my further rationale: 1. There are no sources listed. 2. I couldn't find any sources online myself. 3. The section doesn't mention who did this (i.e. the spitting) or when. 4. The use of dedicated glasses seems pretty fancy for this sort of thing, but what do I know. 5. It doesn't explain how "shot glasses" for spat out shots became glasses for drinking out of. 6. Shot also means "dose" or "small amount". I think it's probably that "shot glass" is called such because it holds a small amount of liquid. It could be that this meaning of shot derives from its use in "shot glass", but the other way seems more likely given the limited evidence here. AliaGemma 12:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Next time, ask the community before arbitrarily deleting a section of text. Now the etymology section contains an equally "highly dubious" and unsourced origin for the name. I agree that some research is in order, but let's not just randomly start deleting text from articles, please. 24.153.118.129 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Now that this article has some knowlegeable content, it needs to be edited consistent with Wikipedia standards. Do the contributors want to do that themselves, or will they welcome some help? -- Mukrkrgsj 02:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Great! I've already rewritten the intro, and done a little cleanup. The main job will be to edit the conversational, "Discussion"-type text you posted to the main article, and clean up some links and references. You might want to add some more info about collectible shot glasses. -- Mukrkrgsj 02:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is still some confusion about the origins of both the modern thick-walled shot glass or shotglass, and the words themselves. It doesn't help that pre-pro.com calls pre-Prohibition whiskey glasses "shot glasses":
I made several changes to the introduction; and I just cut the sentence, "The shotglass probably was born in America in the early 1900s."
I don't know who added the "citation needed" tags, but the intro to the Sizes section still needs editing to eliminate the confusion. Mukrkrgsj 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no source to point to but I always assumed that "shot" was derived from the same line as Snaps and Schnapps. I see no mention of that here. Any sources that point that way? VermillionBird ( talk) 04:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I added the citation needed for 'size has never been defined'. My impression is that can't say that, because it's original research WP:OR (we are implying that WE did an exhaustive search and could not find any definition for the official volume of a shot glass). So what we need is a reliable source WP:V that says it's not been defined. It's a pretty bold statement to say that something has never happened, isn't it? Thanks for asking. Jethero Talk 04:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it wrong to cite the source in the section? Also, since when has wikipedia been cited? 24.14.72.182 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone should fix this. 22:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Seriously. I love it when Wikipedia suddenly goes into the first person. Kensai Max 04:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Tagged section as original research. Propose deletion of section? Origins is not the most relevant or useful section in this article. Why not have an origins section for every word in the encyclopedia? Save it for the OED. The Wilschon 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the origin section should stay. Origin is the most modified part of the Article, which indicates that people are obviously interested in the subject, and have differing ideas about what the origin is. The difference between this article and an entry in the OED is that the origins section of this article is about where an object came from, not the origins of a word. The origin of an object is included in many wikipedia articles; the origins of the automobile is included in the automobile article, the origins of the movie is included in the movie article. As for the OED, it does not contain an origin for the word.
The exact date and location of the invention of the shotglass will probably never be known. But just because the origin is nebulous, that does not mean that we know nothing. We know the time period in which it was created, and the circumstances that lead to its creation. We can use the information that we do know to refute "well known" (but incorrect) theories.
I would think that wikipedia would want to have articles about subjects that people are interested in, and on a subject where the information cannot be found in other sources (such as the OED) -- Dizneydude 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The phrase 'a google book search returns' is completely inappropriate 131.111.243.37 ( talk) 15:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This is only another theory at this time that may be able to be verified that the Shot Glass was originated from Otto Schott and should be spelled correctly, "Schott Glass". I first heard this from a Carl Ziess representative from Germany in the Optical industry and may be able to be verified in Germany.-- ravtux 09:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Reading the article, I came to think of the origin of the word. In a sence it's touched upon in the bottom of the article, when referring to the small amount shot glasses contain. I suggest looking into the word short. Short glass. This both refer to the size of the glass and the amount it thusly contains - a short amount. It's just as likely, that "short" became "shot" as "Schott" did. Would this be an interesting trail to follow?-- Nwinther 12:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there any point in having this image?! resolution is crap, and it doesn't even LOOK like a shot glass. Unless someone has a reason why its there - I'm gonna delete it. It adds nothing to the article IMHO. Skippy ( talk) 04:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
First, a disclaimer: I don't know nuthin' about nuthin' when it comes to this subject. That's why I'm putting this on the talk page, and not making an edit.
That being said, it seems to me that the sentence "Contrary to public opinion, grappa is sipped from the shot glass, not downed in one gulp." can't but be wrong. It seems to me to be whatchamacallit, Americocentric or something. (Wow my spell-checker accepts "whatchamacallit.") Surely if Italian public opinion were that it's to be downed in one gulp, that would be the accepted procedure. Therefore I suggest changing it to something like "Contrary to public opinion in the United States," or "Contrary to public opinion outside Italy." Or something. Anyone got a problem with that? I welcome your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.1.118 ( talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to say that the whole original article seems to be copied word for word from answers.com ( http://www.answers.com/topic/shot-glass),or visa-versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.95.17.9 ( talk) 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
HElp me - In NZ Would you come into a bar and say please can i have a single shot of say bourbon and expect 15ml or 30ml? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.72.11 ( talk) 09:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Anyone have any views on merging this article with Jigger (bartending). That stub article seems incredibly pointless on its own and very internationally unrepresentative, and I'm certain it could be merged into this one. Cheers. ★ KEYS★ (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've just had a good hack at some of the explanations. (My apologies if I trashed your stuff) There's little or no external support for any of them even existing outside this article - let alone being supported by the facts. I have however removed some of the "debunking" text, mainly because without references it's just piling OR onto OR. Oh, and I found some nice earlier refs predating the (vague) OED one. Snori ( talk) 05:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
35 ml is more common in Scotland as well, and 35 is known as a "half" rather than a single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.95.1 ( talk) 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Canada still seems to be confused about units, all these years after metrication. There is a source at Standard drink that says the standard drink in Canada is 13.6 grams. [1]. But it also says this is "44 ml (1.5 ounce) of 40% ... spirits", which would imply US ounces??
I wanted to fix the excess precision in the table; I guarantee no one defines the shot as 42.62 ml. But now I'm not sure what to change it to. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 12:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been trying to measure all our liquers at the bar and I dont really know how to even start.. can anyone help me take the first step??? Finah Drua ( talk) 07:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I have removed a table and some text from the Jigger section. The product catalog is unsourced and does not belong here per WP:NOTCATALOG. The rest of the text seems to be mostly WP:OR. The one source cited just says "during and immediately following Prohibition, recipes often carried measurements that are not common today." This does not support the text. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 20:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)