Talk:Flor de Caña

Nicaragua Mid‑importance

	Nicaragua portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nicaragua, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nicaragua 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.NicaraguaWikipedia:WikiProject NicaraguaTemplate:WikiProject NicaraguaNicaragua articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Spirits Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirits WikiProject task list:

This list is transcluded from the tasks page, to edit it click here.

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Spirits:

Tagging all articles that fall under our scope with {{WikiProject Spirits}} and assessing their quality and importance to the project.

Cocktails[edit]

Flor de Caña is a key ingredient in the Montini.

Translations[edit]

Wouldn't sugar cane be "caña de azúcar" in Spanish? <K F> 00:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(And so Flor de Caña would be "flower of the cane"?)

Not really. The word "caña" refers only to the sugar cane. On the other hand, "cane" refers to a wooden stick, or stick. So it is basically necessary to mention the "sugar". The article is correct.Cirilobeto 02:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Product concerns[edit]

I'm confused about the different types of Flor de Cana. Is there one that's aged for 21 years, or is Centenario 21 really just 15 years old with Centenario Gold being 18 years old?

Yup, it is 15 years. I don't know why they chose to name it Centenario 21. Would be good to know though. --Cirilobeto 18:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just shutup and drink it 2600:100B:B008:DB13:FC9D:D047:2D99:B761 (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MarketingR6rome (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just visited the official site http://www.flordecana.com/ . They say that the 21 is to commemorate the new century: 21. --Cirilobeto 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web site does not list any 21 year old rum. The centenario 21 is a blend of 15 year olds. Fixed product listing to reflect that fact R6rome (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a 5 year "Black Label" rum that is bottled. The label is similar to that of the 7 year 'Gran Reserva'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.160.204 (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

On March 1 2016 a user deleted the entire criticism section without any reason given. I would be grateful, before undoing those changes, to receive other people's input on if this removal was justifed and the criticism was irrelevant. Thanks! Tlawson74 (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this - I suspect brand managers have been a bit too active with edits on this page. I went back and looked at the previous criticism section and the items listed there were valid concerns: there's currently a class action lawsuit against William Grant and Sons over potentially deceptive labeling (the numbers on the labels aren't actually the age of the spirit), there was quite a bit of reportage over the worker treatment and the kidney ailments suffered by those around the cane farms. All of those were deleted in the 1 Mar 2016 edit. I'll try to come back here and restore those to the page with citations. Rjhatl (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjhatl:, prior to accusing someone of being a "brand manager," please make sure that you WP:AGF. I believe I did many edits to this page back in 2017 and may have been the one who did the cleanup. if there is something specific you think needs to be changed, I would be happy to discuss. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: I don't recall offhand whether you made those edits or not, and I do my best to AGF. But bulk deleting a criticism section in its entirety without much comment stretches that a bit. Again, I don't remember who did the deletions and I haven't had a chance to come back and work on this page again, but I'll try to get back here this month and re-create it and I'll ping you so you can take a look and see if you have an issue. Rjhatl (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an accusation was made without the research so that would be the first place to start. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership[edit]

It would be helpful if someone could assist in clarifying the relationship between Flor de Caña and Compañía Licorera de Nicaragua, S.A. Did the company that made the plantation develop the original Flor de Caña get bought out by Compañía Licorera de Nicaragua, S.A. at a later date, and the latter is who currently produces it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.220.127 (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Flor de Caña. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]