User talk:SilkTork/Beer Archive/Beer2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beer edits from April - December 2006.

Beer edits in the first three months of 2006 can be found in User talk:SilkTork/Jan 2006 - March 2006.

Contents 1 Brewbox 2 Beer box proposal 3 re: Beer cats 4 Heineken in Belgium 5 Beer infobox proposal 6 Public Houses 7 Rochester, Kent 8 Re:Guiness 9 High Falls Brewing Company 10 List of hop types on Hops 11 draught beer 12 Public Houses (2) 13 Beer Reorganisation 14 Beer footnotes 15 Comments 16 Beer 17 Beer

[edit] Brewbox

Hi SilkTork. I did not develop the brewbox, but I have done a little work on it (I think Clockworksoul or Daniel11 may have started it). Mainly, I've added defaulting to blank for some of the parameters (e.g. "caption" on {{Brewbox image}}) and the ability to list seasonal beers in a separate section of the brew listing (people had been putting "(seasonal)" after the name). I also wrote the documentation for using the brewbox. As for the meat of your question, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether the beer listing belongs in the brewbox. One benefit I could see of ditching the beer listing is that we could make single, minimally conditional template (i.e. {{Infobox Brewery}}) for the whole box instead of having separate templates for each part. Perhaps you should discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer. Mike Dillon 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer box proposal

I'm afraid I'm completely busy this weekend, so I'll have to get back to you later in the week on your idea. I'd be glad to offer my opinion (for what it's worth), but you can also post it directly to the Beer project discussion page if you don't feel like waiting. I'm literally smothered in work over the whole weekend, so I can't even give a quick response, but I'll definitely get back to you as soon as I can. --Daniel11 05:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Beer cats

I've replied on my talk. :) --Syrthiss 11:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I just got back from a holiday in Bali. I will take a look at it. --Dforest 03:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

One good award deserves another!

[edit] Heineken in Belgium

I reverted the comment you removed here: it was not nonsense but simply the truth. Heineken is very marginal here indeed, they owned a number of pubs but sold them off in the 1980s because Belgians just didn't like the thing. I know no pubs here with Heineken on tap, and it is quite difficult to find in shops either. Why is this? Many Belgian beers available, for sure, but also a certain Belgian chauvinism, since many here don't even consider Heineken proper beer!

With beer greetings (just back from Scotland where I mostly imbibed 80' !) LHOON 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your new setup of the page as treating the brewing company and not the beer itself. Maybe later there may be pages on individual beers here... LHOON 09:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer infobox proposal

SilkTork,

Sorry again it took me a while to get a bit of time and get back to you, it's been real hectic.

I don't think you'll be able to avoid a bit of heated discussion one way or another with your idea, but it's definitely something worth getting into some discussion over. While I admit to personally disagreeing with your idea for the brewbox, I think you should suggest it on the Beer project talk page and see if there's overall consensus. I don't totally disagree with it, in fact I think it could use a change, I'm just not sure I agree with some of the speecifics -- e.g., putting the box at the bottom of the page seems far less useful to me. One thought I had is that we could leave it at the top, but in cases where it's not really relevant (e.g. for some European brewery that doesn't emphasize styles) we could put "Name: Beer #1 | Style: See below" "Name: Beer #2, Style: See below," and then explain either in the article or in a separate box that there's a more appropriate measure than "beer style" for this brewer's production.

That leads me to a more general idea, which is that at some point we may want to start doing individual brewboxes for each beer, not just the brewery (though it may go on the brewer's page), and if we did that there would be plenty of room for details concerning the nature of the beer that go beyond just a simplified style.

I also agree with your concern that the current setup encourages just putting up a list of beers that are brewed by a company and leaving it at that (I'm guilty, too), but I'm not sure what can be done about that, and I think on the flipside it also might encourage starting articles that tempt other people to do some real research.

Anyway, sorry again for my delay in getting back, and to recapitulate I agree with you about the need to look into refactoring our approach to brewboxes, but I disagree with your specific solution, but I'd like to see the problem (and your solution) discussed in general and strive for everyone's feedback and a consensus. Hope I didn't miss anything major, but if you bring it up on WPB then it should get aired out at some point anyway.

Cheers! --Daniel11 09:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, your concerns are definitely valid, and I suppose we'll have to work out some answers one way or another. One quick point on which I think there's a somewhat clear answer: with brewboxes it's actually easier rather than harder to make modifications, because one only needs to make one change to the template, and it will be propagated through all the articles. So there's definitely a benefit in that, although of course it's not the whole story. Personally I feel it would be best to invite everyone to participate in the decision-making, since the regulars will be the most likely to participate but that way everyone gets a say and doesn't feel they have to conform to some pointless orders but are instead part of the decision-making process, and they're just as likely to have good ideas and fresh viewpoints as someone who contributes more frequently.

Anyway, I guess it's a bit much to try to answer every one of the issues you raise right here and now, but I definitely favor bringing it up on the public board even with all the potential acrimony that entails. Of course, in the end it's up to you how to proceed -- after all, they are your ideas. --Daniel11 10:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public Houses

Hi, you appear to have made some pretty arbitrary and unilateral decisions regarding the Public Houses article. Several directory links removed, another one added, some left as they are. If you feel you want to make such major changes to an article, can I suggest you raise it on that article's discussion page first, so a concensus can be reached. I've reverted the link I know about, as I can confirm it is a non POV, open site as per Wiki guidelines; but I don't have all the information on the others you have removed. Cheers Duncshine 09:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve, Thanks for your replies on my talk page. Just for clarification. My site is non-commercial, so there's really no question of spamming. I think it very much adds to what wiki is doing. I have had this discussion elsewhere. Clearly, Wiki does not want an article on every pub in the country. However, the pubs of a locale or area do form an integral part of the fabric of that area, which is why I believe the local links do add value. I think this is where the external links sections work quite well - information on my site is regularly updated by users, particularly in the South West, but it would be impossible to keep changing the main articles within Wiki to reflect all the changes on my site.

Also, I'm not sure I share your view that beerintheevening and pubutopia are any more or less legitimate as links. This seems a bit arbitrary to me. Both are commercial web sites (they both want landlords to pay to advertise their pubs), and distinctly pov. Beerintheevening comments on one pub 'Absolutely Amazing food which is ready straight away, The only problem is the old weirdo bearded chef is a ****** fat little loud mouthed ***** who is not the height to clap a dog let alone go aboot bein mouthy'. What we have set out in our site is designed to be non POV and factual wherever possible.

Certainly, with local links, I have not, and will not, add any links unless I genuinely believe the information contained on my site adds value. (Look at the pubs in the Borders region on my site, and you'll see why there will be no links to that section any time soon!)

All that said, I really am just trying to contribute to Wiki, so if the concensus is that any individual or collective links fail to add value, I will of course go with the majority. CHeers Duncshine 11:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, also meant to confirm that I will not re-revert your removal of the link on the Public Houses page. One thing to disagree, but no point in being stubborn about it! Duncshine 11:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you further comments. I shall bear them in mind. Duncshine 13:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve, just to let you know that I have seen that you have been through and systematically removed a number of my links because you see them as 'promo' links. I have to say that I disagree with you on this. I do feel that the local links added value by providing information that is not available on Wiki, and which Wiki doesn't really want to add in its own articles.

I have not reverted any of your changes, and I fully respect your opinion on this. However, I sense you feel there is a nefarious agenda here, and I wanted to reassure you that I was only trying to help. All external links, by definition, are trying to attract people to the web site linked to. I read the external links guidelines, particularly under 'What Should Be Linked To':-

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article".

"Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews".

I felt that the level of detail on the links I had added was inappropriate for the Wikipedia article, and that the information was both neutral and accurate where I had added links.

I'm sorry if I sound defensive, but I feel you have misjudged my motives and over-reacted by deleting many links which added value. You said in your first post on my talk page that you felt they added value.

When I first found Wiki, I posted a couple of links relevant to my day job. These were considered promotional, and this was explained to me by Perfecto. Since then I have only sought to make contributions that I genuinely feel add value, and have kept well away from my day job for precisely that reason. My pub site really is a labour of love - we accept no payment from anyone for anything, ever! - and I was only trying to share the information with Wiki users.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble now. Just wanted to let you know my thinking behind the links, and hopefully reassure you about my motives. I've looked through your contributions and you clearly have only the interests of Wiki at heart. To reiterate, I will NOT revert any of the links you have removed. I will continue to contribute to wiki where I can, of course, and agree that, wherever possible, content is better than links. I would like to think there are cases where external links to my site do add value, but will not add any new ones unless and until you and the other editors agree with me. Cheers Duncshine 09:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC).

Hi again. I'm glad of this discussion, and the fact that it's civil (you will never get any abuse from me, no matter how vehemently we disagree). I think I agree with you on the directory link from Public Houses, which was where we started I guess. Beerintheevening is a bigger web site with more hits.

Your point about whether a link to the pubs of an area / near a tourist attraction adds value is well made, too. My take is that information on the pubs of an area adds value, but I accept you have a different view.

But at the risk of you really getting fed up with me, let me just respond to one last point. While BITE has more information on many pubs, and I'm not arguing the overall point. The local links were only where I considered my site to have more information. Have a look at:-

*The Rock Inn in Cornwall.

On that page I think there is useful and additional information about that pub. This pub is not featured at all on BITE, so I couldn't provide a link through BITE.

So in that instance I feel linking to my site rather than BITE makes sense. That's why most of the local links were in the South West, because the information for the many pubs in the South West is comprehensive enough to add value.

In your neck of the woods (Rochester?), however, our information/coverage is poor (you're welcome to contribute, of course), so there would be no point in linking to information in that area.

I hope I'm not labouring the point, but felt that was worth saying.

To change the subject slightly, you and I share an interest in writing. I've read some of your articles and confess I am not in your league. I contribute to the local CAMRA newsletter here in Bristol. Link included purely for your interest and to end the conversation on a less controversial note... Pints West Cheers Duncshine 10:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rochester, Kent

Hi again. Thanks for the kind comments about Pints West, although my 'Shine On' articles bring the tone down somewhat.

To be honest, I accept the most part of your reasoning re the links. And I don't feel strongly enough about the areas where we disagree to go to mediation.

I guess I just become defensive when people question my motives. I think people tend to assume there's no such thing as a free site (which on Wikipedia is ironic) and think the worst.

I'll do you a deal. If you accept that my intentions were honourable, I'll accept the removals. (Actually, I'll accept them anyway, but it would make me feel better if you accepted I wasn't trying to spam up wiki!).

[edit] Re:Guiness

First off their is no stated policy of such on the the project page, nor has their been any discussion on the project page in regards to this issue either. Also these article require that a merge tag be placed on the articles in question that that discussion take place, none of which has been done. Their for as long as you continue to force the merge of these pages i will simply have to revert you. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, though i do disagree with the basic breaches of process, i also do not approve of the mergers either. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Falls Brewing Company

Why is Narragansett on this page? The article says it is brewed in High Falls, New York. High Falls Brewing Company is not located in High Falls, New York.

Thanks for pointing that out. I have made the edit. However, you could have made the edit yourself. Wiki needs people who are prepared to be bold and do some editing! SilkTork 17:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of hop types on Hops

Hi Steve, I've moved the list of hop types off the article page onto the discussion page for reasons described at Talk:Hops. Can you come over and comment on the source of this list? I'm worried it may have copyright problems. Cheers. -- cmh 16:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] draught beer

Hello Silktork. I've been on wikibreak the past few weeks, so now I will give it a look. I think the intro is more verbose than it ought to be, e.g. overuse of 'understandings'. The definition of 'served from a pressurised container' neglects that conventionally bottled, and even bottle-conditioned beers are also pressurised. I further disagree that it is the main understanding of the word.

The distinction of 'in the UK / outside the UK' is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. For example, both American and British dictionaries use the 'drawn from a large container' definition, usually to the exclusion of others. IMHO, the dictionary defintion of the word should take precedence.

Also, the objection to the use of the word when applied to canned beer is not exclusive to the UK.

Regards, Dforest 00:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public Houses (2)

Hi Steve, thanks for your kind comments, always welcome! I am, in general, in favour of allowing 'external links' sections free rein as long as the sites are non-commercial, or more importantly non-POV. We've had discussions about my own site, as you'll recall. I notice from the discussions above that someone has questioned your links to ratebeer.com, but to be honest I am equally relaxed about those. Certainly each link needs to be considered on its own merit. A lousy and marginal web site may have one very relevant page or article worth linking to, while generally very good web sites will have the odd dodgy page.

On the broader point, thanks again. Yes, I try and add information where I can, and correct errors where I spot them. I guess my interests of beer (and cider), football, birdwatching and my local area make me a jack of all trades rather than a master of one; my mind does not run to systematic recategorisation and, I suspect like you, I prefer the freedom of writing articles with a bit of POV! On which subject, the new Pints West is out on Monday. CAMRA Bristol will have a downloadable PDF of it, and I thoroughly recommend the article on Pubs to watch the World Cup ;-) Cheers! Duncshine 05:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer Reorganisation

Thanks Steve for your feedback. I know what you mean about the contents section becoming unwieldy. I guess my thinking was more about creating a framework so that, when people added more information, there would be a rough guide as to where they should put things. It may be that there is more to be said about the ingredients which will flesh that section out.

That said, I still think the article looks a bit unkempt. Maybe a further tightening and grouping of the disparate paragraphs. Not to make the content section bigger, but perhaps to tidy it up a bit. Let me know what you think.

I am pleased with the new look of the external links section. As you may be gathering, this is a bit of a bug bear of mine! Mind you, my next stop may have to be the Pub Names page. That is desperately in need of an ordered mind! Thanks again Steve. Duncshine 11:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer footnotes

Glad to help. Good work with the article thusfar. Cheers! -Loren 07:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Hello SilkTork, thanks for your comments and congratulations on your upcoming wedding :) sikander 01:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer

IO don't think its my edits becasue I saw the missing text at Beer before I ever edited it. Some edits were lost because I reverted to an old version. I have no idea why some stuff was lost on the talk page. BrokenSegue 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer

oh well, i think that it is better than the ww2 article. what you're a wine person? LOL Richardkselby 01:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC) I don't know if one exists, but there should be a wikipriject Alcohol. That would be funny.