Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

New Portal, Drinks

I have created a new portal for the beverage community. While the Beer and Wine projects have their own specialized portals, the rest of the Drink WikiProjects do not have their own portal to call their own.

It is here. Please be warned, it is still a work in progress and is not fully populated.

I would gladly welcome the assistance of the members of this project in getting it up and running.

Also, please check out the new WikiProject Spirits which is for distilled alcoholic beverages such as vodka and whiskey.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Dietary information section on beer/brewery articles

If you do a google search on vegetarian/vegan beer you will notice there are many websites dedicated to the subject with regards to whether a beer is suitable for vegetarains and vegans. As some of you may or may not know, animal products may be used in the production of a beer. Given the prevalence of the interest in this aspect of beer, along with the fact that many supermarkets are now marking their own ales as "suitable for vegetarians" in some cases I think it would be useful information for Wikepedia to incorporate into its beer articles. I understand that are some people object to this because it is not relevant to anyone who is not vegetarian, but I think those of you who think such information is irrelevant may be labouring under the false assumption that a vegetarian lifestyle is very a niche aspect of our culture that doesn't warrant the information being added to the articles, but the fact is that there are an estimated 12 million vegetarians in the US alone and millions across Europe so this type of information is relevant to a significant proportion of the population.

My suggestion is to establish a product/dietary information section for each beer or beer range produced by a brewery where such facts can be listed, for example whether a product is suitable for vegetarians. Some critics point out that this could lead to the addition of limitless trivia about beers such as whether it is suitable for coeliacs and whether it is Halal (although this would be pointless since no beer can be Halal since Muslims are forbidden to drink alcohol). The type of information I would like to add to the articles is the sort that is already been listed on some products, nothing obscure but the sort of information that is increasingly turning up on beer bottles. As an example, I have a bottle of Morrisons Organic Golden Ale here which stipulates that the beer is certified by the "Soil Association", it is "Suitable for Vegetarians" and also contains an allergy warning that it "Contains gluten snd sulphites".

The dietary aspects of beer are becoming increasingly important to various consumer food groups, a movement that has been embraced by supermarkets that are now starting to state vegetarian suitability on the labelling of their own beer products. Another criticism that has been levelled at the suggestion is that it's nothing to do with the beer, but it is an aspect of the beer that many people are interested in knowing about. There are some people who will only consume beers that conform to the organic soil association standard, and there is an increasing market in this area, and the vegetarian market is analagous to that. They both address the methods of production of a beer. The market forces in this area are becoming increasingly strong to such an extent that there is a CAMRA movement pushing the development of gluten free beer.

One suggestion is to establish an article about vegetarian beers, which is one method but the problem here is that you would have to be aware of the list. It is entirely conceivable that someone would look up Hoegaarden to see if it is suitable for vegetarians, so in IMO would be a good idea to include the information on the article. On beers that are not suitable for vegetarians my suggestion is to leave such articles alone and just incorporate the information if they are suitable. A precedent already exists on Wikipedia in that some articles about soft drink products state if they are suitable for vegetarians.

There is currently debate about which sources would be acceptable for such information, but it would be best to not conflate the two subjects. The main thing I want to discuss at the moment is the inclusion of such information into the article. I think it would be of an interest and use to a vast number of people and would not be to the detriment of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the creation of a separate list (if there are enough independent reliable sources like magaziens or newspapers about this, why not?), but I don't think that this information should be included on the pages of individual beers or breweries, since it is not an essential, important aspect of the beer. Fram (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This is a ridiculous request and why this user refuses to write a separate article on the subject is further evidence that she is seeking to spam a website. I can see no other reason for taking information that belongs in a separate article and instead writing it to many articles. Mikebe (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A separate list is certainly a good idea. As to your proposal for a separate section in beer articles, I don't think your proposal is ridiculous, but I don't support it. Noting in articles whether a beer meets some special standard whether it be vegetarian or eco-friendly or whatever seems perfectly fine. I think a section in each article would be way too much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
So you would support a motion for including the information but by incorporating it into an already existing section? I can cetainly live with that compromise, and indeed this has already happened in one article where there was a dispute. I certainly have no intention in unbalancing the pre-existing structure of the article. My argument is really for the inclusion of the information in a way that satisifes all parties. Betty Logan (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that this person could write a simple article about her subject instead of adding it to many articles? Are you also aware that his/her goal is to place a link to an advertising-supported website? I realise that you are probably not aware of the latter, but you might want to think about that. Mikebe (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
An article or list of vegetarian beers wouldn't really serve a useful purpose, or at least not serve the same puprose as incorporating the information into the beer article. If people want to know something about a particular beer they look up the article on that particular beer, they don't scour wikipedia for articles that might discuss that beer. As for the references, many websites are supported by advertising and I am not aware of such websites being prohibited by Wikipedia. Many newspapers are in part supported by advertising revenue which are accepted as sources. If alternative sources were known to me I would be happy to use those instead. Betty Logan (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I hardly know where to start. Let me try:
  1. First: several people have pointed out (such as Fram above) that the information you want to insert is "not an essential, important aspect of the beer." The fact is: this is NOT relevant to beer, it IS relevant to vegetarians.
  2. You wrote "there are an estimated 12 million vegetarians in the US alone." (Source?) Yet, when I did a search, I came up with about 5 million from what I consider a reliable source (http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2006issue4/vj2006issue4poll.htm).
  3. Thirdly, when have you ever supplied reliable data showing that beer is of interest to vegetarians? I would be very interested to see that data from a reliable source.
  4. Fourth: I have two vegetarian (organic) shops in my neighbourhood and one beer shop. Both vegetarian shops carry a few beers and the beer shop carries 950 different beers (http://www.debierkoning.nl/beta/index.php?%20body=infoUK.html). So, now the question is: does a vegetarian seeking vegetarian beers go to one of the vegetarian shops or go to the regular beer shop and pick up each of the 950 beers until they find one that is vegetarian? Likewise, a vegetarian comes to Wikipedia looking for vegetarian beer (don't forget: I'm still looking for evidence that beer is a desired product by a significant number of vegetarians). There is, as you know, a search box on every page. Do they type in the search box every beer name they can think of hoping that one of them will have vegetarian information in the article or do they just type in "vegetarian beer" and expect that a helpful article will pop up with a list of vegetarian beers?
  5. And lastly, you wrote: "If alternative sources (non-advertising sites) were known to me I would be happy to use those instead." Well, a funny thing happened to me: I typed "vegetarian beer" into Google and the very first site that came up was this one: http://www.zen159730.zen.co.uk/Vegetarian_beers.html Why couldn't you find that? Mikebe (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I will address your points in turn:
  1. Is information about the brewing process relevant to the beer? Is information about the ingredients relevant to the beer? Is information about the various by-products used in the brewing process relevant to the beer? Would it be irrelevant to state on a brewery article that isinglass is used in the brewing process or that isinglass wasn't used in the process? It seems to me that this type of information is relevant to the beer. If you have a problem with the phrase "suitable for vegetarians" because it packages the information for vegetarians, would you simlarly have a problem with rephrasing the information in such a way that it reads "Hoegaarden brewery does not use isinglass as part of the fining process in any of its beers"?
  2. As for the number of vegetarians it is difficult to estimate. I took the statistic from the Wikipedia article. I have read somewhere that the estimated number is 8 million. But 5 million, 8 million, 12 million? None of those numbers are what would be deemed insignificant, especially when you take into account the english speaking world beyond the US. There are articles on Wikipedia that have an appeal demographic of much smaller numbers so I don't really understand the point you are making here.
  3. I have provided references to the Vegetarian Society's section dedicated to wine and beers suitable for vegetarians. The fact that Britain's biggest vegetarian society has a section for it speaks for itself. Fram has already conceded the Vegetarian Society is a reliable source.
  4. Many vegetarians will still shop at Tesco, Asda etc rather than dedicated vegetarian shops for cost reasons, convenience, location and of course the vast shelf space offers a sufficient vegetarain range. But to use your analogy, if I wanted budweiser I would go to whichever shop sells it, most likely the beer shop. Similarly, if someone wanted to know the vegetarian status of budweiser would they look up "vegetarian beers" or "budweiser"? I think they would check the specific brand article first.
  5. The link you use an example is one of the references I provide for Hoegaarden. Are you saying that someone could just use the link rather than coming to Wikipedia? That may be true, but many of these sites are not exhaustive, and more importantly they are only one source. Wikipedia allows for such information to be drawn for various different sources providing a more complete catalogue. It allows for the information to be corroborated from different sources. If the site comes down you don't lose the information, it just has to be resourced. It allows mulitple information to be collated in one article providing a one-stop-shop for information about particular beer. This goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is though and addresses the whole philosophy of the website so is hardly a topic limited in scope to a beer's vegetarian status. Betty Logan (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See also the current cfd [1] for Category:vegetarian beers. Rd232 talk 08:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support an article on vegetarian beer, like the one I helped write on Gluten-free beer, but not veggie information on every beer article. The article could give a broad overview, revealing that the process of making lager does not involve isinglass, and the process of making filtered beer which ends up in kegs and most bottles, does not involve isinglass - though some lagers (very few) may contain glycerol monostearate to create a foamy head - though that is not common in ales where wheat is preferred. The beers which may contain isinglass are cask ales and bottle conditioned beers. A sensible and intelligent article on that matter would clear up that issue and so avoid the need for this: Category:vegetarian beers. We don't have a Category:vegetarian cheese, instead we have sensible information contained within the Cheese article which informs and educates people. That vegetarian beers category is not helpful to anybody, and is currently misleading as it suggests that the brewers in that list produce vegetarian beer, when all of them do the same thing - make beer, some of which contain isinglass or glycerol monostearate, and some of which does not, but the category doesn't indicate which is which! As of the time of writing, over 90% of the beers in the world are vegetarian - so a more useful category would be: Category:Non-vegetarian beers. Hmmm. I might get cracking on that veggie beers article tomorrow, and once that is in place, diminish the vegetarian beers category as misleading, and put it up for deletion again.
As a declaration of interest, I do not eat meat, and have not done so for over 35 years, and I'm a member of Viva!. But I do eat fish, and I do drink cask ale cleared with isinglass. SilkTork *YES! 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


The sites used as sources for the Dietary information are not reliable. barnivore.com is based on people writing in with claims to have spoken to or emailed companies. There is little or no sourced evidence. The zen.co.uk is a well meaning individual who is writing to breweries and publishing the contents of their responses. The responses in themselves need to be treated with care even if true, as a brewery claiming that the beer has no animal ingredients need not mean that the beer wasn't "treated" with an animal byproduct. The response from Youngs is typical: "We do not use any animal products in our beers." A brewery could stop at this point. However, Youngs do go on to say: "We do however use isinglass finings in all our beers except our two lagers." Not all breweries might add that information, especially if they are using glycerol monostearate or some other animal byproduct in the treatment of the beer.

Sourced information regarding animal products in beers would be usefully placed in Vegetarianism and beer rather than directly in the beer and brewery articles. SilkTork *YES! 20:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Examples

Over a year ago, Beakerboy proposed that national examples in beer articles should be limited to three per country with, as I recall, one extra for the country that developed the type of beer. Most other editors agreed with him. Last August, a new editor appeared and immediately complained about this rule, so a few people gave up and the list of examples was increased to eight per country with none extra for the country that developed the type of beer. That "new editor" then disappeared.

The problem that Beakerboy and many other editors saw was that users, often non-registered, would add their local beer or the beer they produce to the lists regardless of what agreement was in place. Several articles now have lists that are longer than the article itself. Also, there is no one really enforcing these agreements.

So, I would now like to propose that we drop the Examples all together. Since most of the Examples are only available locally anyhow, we are not necessarily providing much of a service. Secondly, we are not Ratebeer or Beeradvocate and should not try to emulate them. And finally, if we have no examples, no one can complain that country A has six beers listed and country B only has five. Thoughts? Mikebe (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you limit the list then what is the process for deciding which examples are included? Is it a completely arbitrary selection, because someone could come along and state there is no good reason why a particular beer is included and not another? It would be improper for the Wikipedia community to choose which beers go on the list as examples, so there would have to be some external sources that stipulate a selection of key beers. Betty Logan (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Why not just list every beer produced in a particular style? Or let anyone add any beer they feel like? That's what's happened until now. External source to select key beers - the bjcp is an obvious candidate. Yeah, it would be crazy for wikipedia itself to exert any editorial control.Patto1ro (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. It's rare to get so much entertainment for your money here at Wikipedia. Mikebe (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen on lists within articles as they don't tell us much. Lists within articles are generally discouraged on Wikipedia. I would say the approach is to write about a beer and in the text to include notable examples, with an explanation of why that example is notable (first of it's type, biggest seller, most extreme example, one most written about, etc) - and that lists of examples should be diminished as pointless. SilkTork *YES! 23:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this would be the best way to proceed going forward. If a list is present it is easy to add to it. If, instead, there is a paragraph featuring notable current and historical examples of a particular beer "style" it would probably manage itself.Beakerboy (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the portal and project pages

Hello, your friendly neighborhood maintenance man here: I need some help with some issues on the Portal and Project pages:

  1. I need images that are in the public domain for the selected breweries section here. Any help would be appreciated! Either actual images or links to said images
  2. I have finished revamping the Portal and most of the Project pages. If anyone has suggestions or needs for the page, please ask!
  3. I need suggestions for the February update: article, brewery, person, DYK, picture and quote.

Remember, any help you give me can help you by bringing attention to the subject of Beer and new members to your project.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy
  1. Needs for a page - we could do with a page on Yeast handling (or yeast husbandry)
Basically a page that deals with the propagation, pitching, cropping and scapping of yeast.
I would be happy to work on it.
Andbrew.downes (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


There has been some discussion about the naming of the taskforce, and it has been temporarily renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment working group, while the project space is being considered for deletion. The initial aims of the taskforce are to consider the place of A-class in the assessment scheme. Don't be put off by the invitation being worded for "Coordinators" - if anyone has a view they should make it known on whatever talkpage remains after the fuss has died down. SilkTork *YES! 16:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:51, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

This is now active and the alerts can be found on the project page. At the moment you have to scroll down - so I may move the alerts higher. It looks very useful. SilkTork Talk 02:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Packaging

How much - if any - information do we need on packaging of individual brands? My inclination is that unless the packing is notable or interesting in some way, then it's rather trivial information that is perhaps best left out. However, if people feel that some packaging information can be meaningful and helpful, then how do we incorporate it into articles? I suspect most people would feel that an entire section on everyday packaging is too much - but would some mention of the typical packaging and size in a general description of the brand be OK? Some possible choices:

  1. No mention of packaging
  2. Only mention notable or interesting packaging, and then as part of a general description of the brand
  3. Generally mention packaging as part of a general description - same as style and abv.
  4. Have a section dedicated to detailed description of packaging.

I am inclined to go with #2, though I have no huge objections to #3 if it can be contained, and not drift into trivia. I feel #4 is excessive. SilkTork *YES! 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New Beer Project page

There's been a few adjustments to our project page - Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer. The aim is to declutter, make navigation easier, and to focus on our core tasks and aims. New subpages have been created, and these can be accessed alongside existing subpages from a main navigation pad high up on the page. The page is now cleaner and shorter. The intention is that the page should not need manually updating - alerts, assessment and cleanup tags are maintained automatically. Areas that needed manually updating have been removed, as these can become out-of-date quickly and can give the appearance that this project is not active. Feedback on the changes would be appreciated. SilkTork *YES! 23:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Highest & Lowest. Any place for it on wiki?

I've been using googlemaps and the ElevationContour gadget to produce a list of pubs over 1000ft (and one below sea level).
Its in my sandbox. [2]
Is there any place for this, or some of it, on wiki?
I only signed up the other day and dont want to get too involved...or upset anyoneFrisasu (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to be bold, if you make an edit that someone disagrees with they should assume good faith and contact you and ask the reason for the edit. If the edit violates policy, they should leave you a valid reason for what they did and why. If anyone makes an inappropriate comment to you, they are being rude and you can disregard the comment.
The members of the Beer project welcome your enthusiasm to help out, and I am sure they will help you learn the ropes. --Jeremy (blah blah) 21:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Old Speckled Hen

I was wondering if I could establish a consensus for "re-establishing" the article on Old Speckled Hen. It currently redirects to Greene King Brewery, with a small section in that article. However, I think it has notability in its own right an could be a decent article. As such, I would like to shorten the section in the brewery article and add a link to the "main article" of the beer. I'm happy to do the work on the article but I want to establish consensus so people don't go hastily nominating it for deletion. For the record, there is a precedent for articles on an individual beer. See Stella Artois, Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) and probably others. HJMitchell You rang? 22:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


I love the Hen! And it may well be a notable brand. It certainly gets plenty of advertising, and there was a degree of attention when Greene King bought Morland. I think a little more can be said than is already in Greene_King#Morland_brands, though I don't think anything can be cut from that - in fact I'd like to see that section developed a little more. Our guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (breweries), follows the WP:Product guideline, which essentially says that if there are reliable sources dealing in depth with the brand to establish notability, then a standalone article can be created. However, be aware of the statement that "consistent standards should be applied to ensure that advertising budgets are not creating a bias favoring larger breweries and best selling brands." Personally, I think I'd like to see the whole Greene King article developed, including building more information on each brand, and looking first for a split along the lines of Beer brands of Greene King, before looking to individual brand splits. Some of the information on Morland Brewery, Ruddles Brewery, and Ridley's brewery could be brought into the Greene King article to build it. SilkTork *YES! 09:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, though I think it would depend on the circumstance. A permanent redirect would be better off with the talk pages merged, while a temporary redirect is in place while waiting for the article to be created. SilkTork *YES! 12:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Brewbox templates

Template:Brewbox begin and its various sister templates which form the "brewbox" infobox have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Weihenstephaner

I've declined the db-nonsense speedy deletion, but this one needs help. Bad. (My partner likes this beer. Don't let it die!) - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not a beer guy, but I just did a quick wikification of the article and stubbed it out with some translations from Beer Advocate. It will need some more work. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I've merged it to the brewery section in the Weihenstephan Abbey as per Wikipedia:Notability (breweries) and WP:Product. When the information on the beer builds up enough it can then be split out into a standalone article per WP:Summary style. SilkTork *YES! 07:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Very nice work, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

An interesting article

I encountered an article on Scientific American about a company making historical beers and beer like beverages based upon chemical analysis of archeological artifacts from around the globe. it is here. --Jeremy (blah blah) 22:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Dogfish Head do make some cutting edge beers. That's their thing. They've been doing it for a while. The Chinese beer, Chateau Jiahu, has been made since 2005 - [3]. They've made some very strong beers - amongst the strongest in the world, and the hoppiest beers. And just plain strange stuff, like Palo Santo Marron which has been aged on the wood of the sacred Palo Santo tree from Paraguay, and Raison D Etre, which has been made from beet sugar and green raisins. For all the gimmicks and weirdness, the beers are damn tasty! SilkTork *YES! 23:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Two Brothers Brewing

Could someone take a look at Two Brothers Brewing, esp. This edit? — goethean ॐ 01:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have, and the Two Brothers Brewing. article should be deleted. The notability is tenuous at best, as well as, only reason this entry was put up was is for the purpose of free advertising on Wikipedia. See policy WP:NOT.68.251.40.139 (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Is that why you removed two references to the Chicago Tribune and one reference to the Daily Herald from the article? Removing references to reliable sources is against Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 15:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The article was in a mess. I have started a tidy up. It could do with a bit more; however, the company is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. There are a number of reliable sources, including two books, and a handful of newspapers. SilkTork *YES! 19:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed the level of disruption caused by 68.251.40.139, so I have semi-protected the page. Only registered users may edit the article for a period of a week. SilkTork *YES! 19:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the notability. By what standards are you placing on this article in determining it's notably? Also, is questioning an articles notability disruptive? I think the question, is in of it's self, bad faith.68.251.40.139 (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The determination of notability is simple, it requires reliable sources from verifiable, secondary sources that isn't original research. The sources you removed conform to those standards and your removal of them could constitute vandalism. If you question them, please bring it up on the article talk page or here at this forum. --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I know for a fact that if you advertise in the Trib food section, you get reviewed... hardly a reliable standard to determine notability. It would seem if some one edits contrary to your opinion that would be called "vandalism" you should use that word less and consiter my argument more? 68.251.40.139 (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
After reviewing the article in question, I can say that your revert was totally out of place. I have gone ahead and restored your revert as well as took the time to clean up the citations so they follow the proper citation format using {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite news}}. The citations the author provided more than establish notability per WP guidelines, I would also state that the article is written in a way that it conforms with our neutrality guidelines. --Jeremy (blah blah) 04:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We welcome scrutiny of articles on Wikipedia. You have questioned the notability of the Two Brothers Brewing article and three experienced editors have looked into the matter and informed you that in their opinion it meets Wikipedia's requirements. We have also informed you that there is a process for questioning the notability of an article, which is raising it at WP:AFD. Things may have changed, but a person needs to register in order to list an article at AFD - this is to prevent disruptive listing. I have suggested you register in order to list the article at AFD.

Even though we feel your edits are nonconstructive, time-wasting and disruptive, we are engaging in discussion with you in an attempt to explain our thinking, and the processes open to you. I feel we are giving you and your arguments rather more consideration than your behaviour deserves, given that you persist in cutting the article despite what has been said to you. I have again protected the article as this, I feel, will reduce disruption while allowing you to have your say. The alternative would be that your IP address would be blocked if you continued to remove legitimate content from an article after several warnings.

I again suggest you register your account and follow the appropriate channels. This should satisfy you that the article has been appropriately considered as notable. SilkTork *YES! 11:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


New tool

I am requesting a tool which lists beer pages that are the most frequently read (or hit) by Wiki readers - [4]. Looks useful. 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


It's not ready yet, but it's getting there - list. SilkTork *YES! 10:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (cuisines)

This is the proposed naming convention on cuisines that has been percolating for some time, I would like to request all members to please take a look and comment on its talk page. This is a very important rule set that needs to be decided upon, if you wish to establish or please comment under the appropriate section. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Conversation at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). SilkTork *YES! 11:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wem Brewing Company (formerly Hanby Ales Ltd)

Could someone have a look at the above article and tidy up?

As you will see from the history, I expanded it, but I know nothing about the company (or beers - apart from liking some of them!)

I'm not sure how to fill in the InfoBox, so I only put one ale in it!

To be honest, I only worked on the article because it was in the unreferenced articles category, and I was finding a couple of sources, and got carried away... but I am aware of the fact that someone who knows this area needs to look at it.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone will look into it. SilkTork *YES! 21:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I've had a look at the article. I've updated the infobox, and put a tag on the beer list. Such embedded lists are generally discouraged on Wikipedia, and specifically on the Beer Project. The brewery is of marginal notability, and there is not a lot to say about them other than that they are another brewery making beer. Such breweries tend to be better off in the appropriate Economy section within the local settlement article (Wem). See Wikipedia:Notability (breweries). SilkTork *YES! 18:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability of pubs

I've noticed a few pub articles starting to spring up. Could you therefore include pubs in your notability guidelines? I'm wondering what makes a pub notable for Wikipedia, and also if a group of pubs are not notable for individual articles, whether it would be acceptable to create List of pubs in MyTown? Also, does your project view local CAMRA branch newsletters as reliable sources or not? Thanks... sorry that's quite a few questions. --Jameboy (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that just myself the other day - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer/Pub_Taskforce#Notability. Unfortunately things have been a bit quiet here recently, and we could do with more people to help out. Would you like to make some suggestions? My thinking is that pub directories (either websites like Beerintheevening or book directories like Good Beer Guide) would be good enough for mentioning a pub within an appropriate section in the village, town or city article, but more comprehensive reliable sources - an article, mentions in books that are not directories, or significant and repeated mentions in notable directories/guide books - would be needed for a standalone article - and certainly enough material (a DYK length at least) to justify a summary style split from the parent article. Certainly it would be best to start a pub article in the most appropriate settlement article, or at least to check that the settlement article makes reference to the pub. SilkTork *YES! 21:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
CAMRA branch newsletters in general would not be reliable sources as they are not professional publications - that is to say - they are no good for establishing notability; however, some of the better ones can provide good local information - The London Drinker and Pints West are acknowledged as very good. Some rather larger, and more influential publications, such as RateBeer and BeerAdvocate are also not considered reliable, but can be used to support basic information (such as beer range or strength of beers, etc). As for Pubs in MyTown - that is an approach that has been used at least twice, and it is better to group a lots of pubs together that way, than to have a series of stubs. However, again, start with a section in the MyTown article first, and build up from there. Unfortunately, the number of pubs in any MyTown are declining, and - to be fair - the number of genuinely notable pubs in the average MyTown would not make a decent standalone - though could make a decent section in MyTown. I hope that helps. SilkTork *YES! 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The recent AfD on Two Brothers Brewing was instructive. Repeated mentions in reliable sources like newspapers (not including passing mentions like a notice that a band is playing) are enough to allow an establishment to survive AfD. — goethean ॐ 23:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


InfoBox

As the Beer project has developed we have devised some Beer and Brewery InfoBoxes. Over the years a number of these have been deprecated and sometimes deleted. For breweries and beer companies we then had the {{Infobox Brewery}}. On major beer company articles people from outside and inside the project were using the standard {{Infobox Company}}. This sometimes led to edit wars with people preferring one over the other, or both would appear on the article. There has been for some time now a trend to standardisation across Wikipedia to aid navigation for the general reader. As such it was decided to go with the general {{Infobox Company}}. This information has been on the main page -Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer and the template page Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/templates since earlier this year when the BeerBox was depreciated and deleted; however, not everyone is aware of it.

The three main differences between {{Infobox Brewery}} and {{Infobox Company}} are that 1) {{Infobox Company}} is the standard template used across Wikipedia for companies, and gets wide attention from writers and editors so it is maintained to a high standard and contains a good range of fields that make comparison between brewing and other companies easier for the general reader. 2) {{Infobox Company}} does not encourage a list of beers - such embedded lists are discouraged across Wikipedia and here on the beer project 3) {{Infobox Company}} does not contain the beer project yellow colour band.

The fields:

Infobox Brewery 

{{Infobox Brewery
| name           = 
| image          = 
| caption        = 
| location       = 
| owner          = 
| opened         = 
| closed         = 
| production     = 
| url            = 
| active_beers   = 
| seasonal_beers = 
| other_beers    = 
| inactive_beers =
}}

Infobox Company (Fields selected for the Beer Project) 

{{Infobox Company
| name             = 
| logo             = 
| type             = 
| predecessor      = 
| successor        = 
| foundation       = 
| founder          = 
| defunct          = 
| location_city    = 
| location_country = 
| locations        = 
| area_served      = 
| key_people       = 
| industry         = [[Alcoholic beverage]] 
| products         = [[Beer]] 
| production       = 
| revenue          = 
| owner            = 
| num_employees    = 
| parent           = 
| divisions        = 
| subsid           = 
| homepage         = 
| footnotes        = 
| intl             = yes
}}

Infobox Company (Fuller list of fields which can be added by choice) 

{{Infobox Company
| name             = 
| logo             = 
| type             = 
| genre            = 
| fate             = 
| predecessor      = 
| successor        = 
| foundation       = 
| founder          = 
| defunct          = 
| location_city    = 
| location_country = 
| location         = 
| locations        = 
| area_served      = 
| key_people       = 
| industry         = 
| products         = 
| production       =
| services         = 
| revenue          = 
| operating_income = 
| net_income       = 
| aum              = 
| assets           = 
| equity           = 
| owner            = 
| num_employees    = 
| parent           = 
| divisions        = 
| subsid           = 
| homepage         = 
| footnotes        = 
| intl             = 
}}

There have been individual conversations about the use of these boxes over the years, but I don't think there has been anything recent on this talkpage. Comments? SilkTork *YES! 10:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


Talk:Guinness#Requested_move

Discussion to change the name of Guinness to Guinness Draught to clarify that the article is about the brand rather than the company or the brewery (for which we already have separate articles). SilkTork *YES! 10:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer/Archive_5&oldid=1142155129"