Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Beer and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Template Infobox Beer

Hello Beer lovers currently the Template:Infobox Beer refers to Template:Infobox beverage

the content of that template is: {{Infobox beverage | name = | image = | caption = | type = | abv = | proof = | manufacturer = | distributor = | origin = | introduced = | discontinued = | colour = | flavour = | ingredients = | variants = | related = | website = | region = }}

However the supercede content which was {{Infobox Beer | name = Budweiser | image = [[Image:Budweiser Logo.jpg|right|250px|Budweiser logo]] | caption = | brewery = [[Anheuser-Busch]] | style = [[Pale lager]] | year = 1876 | abv = 5.0% (Budweiser/Bud Dry)<br /> 4.2% (Bud Light)<br /> 5.5% (Bud Ice)<br /> 4.1% (Bud Ice Light) | og = 1.045 (Budweiser) | fg = 1.009 (Budweiser) | ibu = 11 (Budweiser) }}

On the dutch wiki they use following template {{Infobox bier | name = | image = | caption = | year = | fermentation = | abv = | densiteit = | typegrain = | typehops = | ingredients = | lagering = | blending = | finishing = | origin = | brewer = | variants = | beertype = | color = | taste = | bitter = | list = }} where | og = | fg = | ibu = could be added

I would like Project Beer Feedback before reactivating Infobox Beer instead of Infobox beverage--DerekvG (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate template for drink products is Template:Infobox drink. The appropriate template for the companies/breweries which make the product/beer is Template:Infobox company. Guidelines and advice for beer related articles are at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Guidelines. SilkTork (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superstition Meadery

Hi could someone have a look at this page and help the creator of the page who is a declared paid COI user User:Justindevine (employee of the meadery) with the editing I have told them that they should go through edit requests and not edit the article directly. I removed a lot of stuff that looked promotional and awards that are user generated on rate beer but from what I can gather you guys use this site as a reliable source for notability. It was Afded once but kept. I think it would be better if someone from the project took this over. Thanks for your help. Domdeparis (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That company doesn't make beer - it is not a brewery. It is a wine-maker, as cider and mead are products of vinification. Try asking on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine. SilkTork (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: ok thanks for that. Do you have an opinion on using rate beer as a reliable source though? Dom from Paris (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not considered a reliable source as it is user generated. We can use it for basic facts, but not for establishing notability. I'm an admin on the RateBeer, but I tend to remove links to RateBeer as they are mostly inappropriate. SilkTork (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks for that it was more or less the conclusion that I had drawn but it's good to have it confirmed. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untappd template

Hi everyone,

I've created an Untappd template, for the external links sections on breweries' articles. It's {{Untappd|link to brewer|name you'd like to see}}. Look up the name of the brewery on Untappd, as the name on Untappd isn't always the same as their actual name. For instance, Firestone Walker Brewing Company is called Firestone Walker. If you leave the last field open, it'll use the name of the article. So {{Untappd|firestonewalker|Firestone Walker Brewing Company}} becomes Firestone Walker Brewing Company on untappd.com. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Untappd is a social-networking site it is not an appropriate site to put into External links per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. SilkTork (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change brewery titles?

Our title guideline for breweries (WP:Brewery name) says " As breweries tend to have a product with the same name as the company - Heineken, Carlsberg, Coors, etc. - it is conventional to identify the brewing company/brewery as such, even when the product does not have a standalone article. So: Heineken International, Carlsberg Group, Coors Brewing Company, etc. The most common identifying global term is Brewery, though Brewing Company is preferred in North America." The use of Brewery with an initial capital letter gives the impression that it is a formal part of the name. Some breweries may indeed be called Foo Brewery, but some may just be Foo, or may be Foo plc, or similar in their legal name, but not Foo Brewery. In such cases it might be better to use a lower case initial letter. See User_talk:SilkTork#Greene King. So instead of Greene King or Greene King Brewery we should have Greene King brewery. We would still differentiate Guinness from Guinness Brewery and Heineken from Heineken International, and comply with the consistency element in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, but would avoid giving the impression that "Greene King Brewery" is the official name of the company. There would be a little bit of work involved in checking if a brewery was called "Foo Brewery" rather than just "Foo", but that could generally be done on an AWB sweep by looking at the lead as most articles tend to give the official or legal name in the first sentence, or in the infobox. Thoughts? SilkTork (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objections here, but probably not something that is super urgent. But if someone felt like tackling it... Neil916 (Talk) 19:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be prepared to do it with AWB. SilkTork (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion below makes me doubt that this would be a task that is well-handled by an automated process. Neil916 (Talk) 15:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AWB is not automated, it is an editing tool that makes editing easier, and so is seen as semi-automated. The AWB would be simply set up to trawl through the brewery articles, and to enter an edit summary, but the actual decision and edit would be made by the operator. However, I'm not doing anything until we have some consensus on what to do. SilkTork (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A request move has been opened on Greene King Brewery - see Talk:Greene_King_Brewery#Requested_move_10_May_2018. As this discussion was already in place, I have asked people to comment here rather than there, as there are several hundred brewery articles, and it makes more sense that we discuss the convention for all of them at one time rather than several hundred times. SilkTork (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds fine to me. brewery is OK, in my view, no need to say Brewing Company. And I am in North America. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brewery articles should be titled with the same convention as other company articles per the guideline. If the word "Brewery" is part of the company's name, the title should be "Foo Brewery". Otherwise, the company name is either a primary topic and the title should be just "Foo", or it needs disambiguation, and should be "Foo (brewery)" as indicated Wikipedia:Disambiguation.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Greene King instance, the company is called "Greene King", and is very rarely referred to as "Greene King Brewery" - I've cited sources in the requested move. Most usage of that term would be specifically referring to the building in which the brewing takes place, rather than the company as a whole.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The company calls itself "Greene King plc" on its website and the London Exchange. My reading of WP:NCCORP says that the article should be named "Greene King" unless at some later date the various brands are separated into separate articles, then the company should be "Greene King plc", the Greene King brand would be "Greene King", etc. The full name (with the plc) should aeear in the first sentence of the article. Neil916 (Talk) 15:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disambiguation allows for WP:Natural ("Foo brewery"), and that choice comes before others, such as parenthetical ("Foo (brewery)"). SilkTork (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My solitary contribution has been to Everards Brewery in Leicester. I'd be quite happy to see it renamed. JRPG (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the Greene King instance, I would prefer to see the article named Greene King as this the well-established company name. I would take the same view for any other business of a similar size. Dormskirk (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Small breweries (e.g., Dragonmead) are easier. The larger problem is mergers and acquisitions. Even establishments that started as microbrewery, e.g., Goose Island got bought by Amheuser Busch/Inbev. Likewise with SAB/Miller. And these few oligopolies control huge portions of the world beer market. These are like nesting dolls. See Matryoshka principle. 22:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite to this debate SilkTork. I would weigh in only to argue that the current "Greene King Brewery" style convention allows for greater consistency across the board, as we will likely have to use such a styling for Guinness Brewery and Bass Brewery anyway, as these entities are part of larger companies, (Diageo and AB-InBev respectively, and the "Brewery" suffix differentiates each page from the beers from such companies, eg "Guinness" and "Bass". As previously mentioned, the English term "Brewery" broadly correlates with the American use of "Brewing Company". However if it was to be put to a vote I would probably be a neutral, as others may feel more strongly about the issue than I do, and have greater knowledge of Wikipedia conventions and rules. Cheers. Tom (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let the establishment (whether Brewery or Company make the choice.) They are the dog, and Wikipedia is merely the tail. We report what is there. If they use "Brewery" in their name, use it. Otherwise, follow what they do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late reply ended up forgetting so dumping my comment before I forget again! - Many thanks for the invite, Personally as per Thirteen we should go with what the company goes by or failing that COMMONNAME, –Davey2010^Talk 18:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aventinus... what?

Aventinus (beer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After assigning the appropriate WikiProjects (including this one) on its talk page, and while filling out the infobox for the article, I realized that there actually is a lack of clarity about what exactly this stub is about. Given the information in the article, it appears to be referring to the Mein Aventinus, also known as TAP6 or Unser Aventinus. This is only one among many Aventinus-brand bocks, however, with the Aventinus Eisbock being among the more popular examples (my German friend is familiar with the latter, but not the former). Consequently, this article seems to be ambiguous and should be either renamed or altogether rewritten to be about the Aventinus brand.

The reason why I haven't done either, however, is because it is frankly unclear to me whether the Mein Aventinus, or even the Aventinus brand itself, is sufficiently notable to have an article. I am definitely not an expert on these matters, nor do I even drink alcoholic beverages more than a few times a year, so I am coming here to see if anyone who is (and does?) can help out. I do not recall ever nominating an article for deletion and would rather this not be the first, so I encourage anyone here who thinks they can rescue this article before I seriously consider nominating it for deletion to please do so. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged it into G._Schneider_&_Sohn#Beers per WP:Beer brands and WP:PRODUCT. SilkTork (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Sun Brewing Co. AK - Draft

Draft:Midnight Sun Brewing Company I'd like help getting support for the article expansion I just sent for review (and was rejected quickly). By the rejection notes pretty much any craft-size brewery would be ineligible for Wikipedia includion. I thought my souces were great and varied, they dumped on it.

Wikipedia doesn't like "award-wining" because it sounds promotional, but in the beer industry notability comes directly from awards. No awards = not worthy of writing about. Thanks!Luke Kindred (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Midnight Sun Brewing Company has existed since 2009, and I see that you managed to merge in the content from the draft a couple of days ago. SilkTork (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candida blankii

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Candida blankii (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Our favorite yeast? Probably not. But no pretense of compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

49th State Brewing Company

After reading the recent AFD for Midnight Sun Brewing Company, can this be similarly salvaged? This was tagged for speedy, which I removed until some sort of expert help can come along. I no longer have access to brewing-specific sources like I did some years ago, but I suspect this brewery's acclaim is fairly recent and those sources wouldn't necessarily help anyway. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moorhouse's Brewery

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article? It's not really very well sourced and seems to have been as such for quite some time. Article was assessed as being of mid-importance to this WikiProject so perhaps it's been changed quite a bit since that assessment was made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Lou's

Any interest in cleaning this article up? --The Huhsz (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article Assessments section, updated

Greetings, For WP Beer, I added progression, pie graphs, rainbow for assessment statistics. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned article

Hello, the article Christina Perozzi and Hallie Beaune is currently orphaned. I failed in my attempts to link to it; since people here are familiar with the topic, you may have more luck. A list of authors who write about beer could be a worthwhile addition to your project, perhaps. Cheers, Robincantin (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robincantin. Thanks for bringing this up, but if you click on "what links here" there are a couple of links to the article so it's not actually orphaned.Tammbeck ^talk 13:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tammbeck, thanks for the rapid response. Yes, I put homebrewing just after leaving the message here. The other links are just transclusion, redirects, talk or other admin pages. A list or navbox would make pages about beer authors more visible, I think.Robincantin (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robincantin. I've added the category "Beer writers" to the article which will hopefully help with visibility.Tammbeck ^talk 13:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beer or brewery (only one brand produced)

Is it more appropriate to name the article Orval Brewery or Orval (beer)? Orval Brewery (Q43146509) (en, it, pt) vs Orval (Q848355) (18 wikis + en. wiki redirect Orval beer)? What is the criteria for choosing one or the other? Could we unify both elements and articles? Both the history of the brewery and the description on the beer can fit in one article, I don't think there is enough content to have two standalone articles. In the case of trappist breweries there is also the abbey articles. Triplecaña (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beer in Tasmania article is up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer in Tasmania. ~EdGl talk 19:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of John Holl article submitted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Holl What do you think my chances are of getting this published? Seems to be worthy based on these other entries here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Beer_writers — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHitchings (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was just rejected due to lack of good sourcing, and I agree – you'll need to find some independent sources. I just made some minor, mostly grammar/visual fixes, but nothing that addresses the main issue. ~EdGl talk 20:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if I go and get some more sources maybe it will pass? TimHitchings (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but read WP:GNG to see what kind of sourcing you need to get an article approved. (And please sign your comments by typing ~~~~.) ~EdGl talk 21:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you do when every article by an author is behind a newspaper paywall and you need to create a reference? TimHitchings (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (I had to use it very recently, in fact). ~EdGl talk 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've resubmitted with additional references and more publications. Many of these on this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Beer_writers which I used as a guide seemed a lot thinner than what I've provided. I'm hoping I can get it right or at least closer. Haven't give this a shot since my first article back in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Jordan_Bachner . Thanks for your patience. TimHitchings (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nottinghamshire breweries

I just spent a day writing three profiles of Nottinghamshire breweries only for someone to come along and delete them. I don't know how to fix this. They were not promotional. There were lots of external citations and just neutral reporting in a standard format. The ones that have been deleted were all on the UK list so they're not unknown but sizeable micro breweries. Specifically this affects: Springhead Fine Ales and Welbeck Abbey Brewery. I noticed on the list that others are also now in red so likely removed: Tirril Brewery, Shotover Brewery, Loddon Brewery, and Abbeydale Brewery. If craft brewery pages are simply going to get deleted then please can someone make a note to say not to bother writing them because it's a massive waste of time and effort. I do feel this is vandalism by people who're not interested in the topic and it creates a lack of balance. How is it promotional to write about a small firm but big firms all have profiles? It's mad because the industry has completely altered to a craft brewing scene. I'd really like to write profiles of small to mid sized brewers but I don't want to waste my time researching all the info just to have them deleted at a stroke. SandrinaHatman (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cape May Brewing Company

Hi, WikiProject Beer! I'm wondering if someone here might be looking for a project.

I work at Cape May Brewing Company, currently the largest independent brewery in New Jersey. Our article was deleted for lack of notability a few years ago. It's been resubmitted a few times, but still fails notability. The article still exists -- as a draft and in someone's userspace.

This is seriously screwing with our SEO. Sometimes Google pulls a knowledge panel from the userspace, which contains outdated information. Sometimes Google doesn't know what to do and serves up no knowledge panel at all.

I'm wondering if someone here might want to rehab the draft. I'm happy to provide sources, etc, but, obviously, I can't work on it because COI. Otherwise, I'd prefer to delete both the draft and the article in the userspace.

If someone is interested, please let me know. Thanks! — Music Maker 5376 16:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MusicMaker5376, I've written loads of brewery and pub articles, though primarily in the UK. The first thing I do when rescuing an article like this is to look at available source material, as sometimes it's easier just to build the article up from scratch, pulling in sourced material from the draft as you go. However, in this case, I'm a bit concerned that the main source I can see is brewbound.com, which I don't know anything about. I'd want to see something about the same level of coverage as Curious Brewing, which includes sources like this dedicated piece in The Guardian (a respected national broadsheet) before i could tackle this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Ritchie333! We've had some national press over the past decade, but I'm not sure what passes for reliable and notable at Wiki these days:

Owner on Fox News: https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5970847327001#sp=show-clips

Owner on MSNBC: https://www.msnbc.com/thomas-roberts/watch/-you-only-pope-once--507813955836 (We brewed a beer in conjunction with the Pope's visit to Philadelphia that got international coverage.)

Beer Connoisseur named one of ours the best beer of 2017: https://beerconnoisseur.com/articles/top-100-rated-beers-2017?page=11

Interested to hear your thoughts. — Music Maker 5376 23:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Bottle Shop & Taproom

I've created the new entry Imperial Bottle Shop & Taproom, which was nominated for deletion overnight. I invite project members to weigh in at AfD and/or help by adding Wikipedia-appropriate beer publications to the article (or even just the External links section). I ask because I'm less familiar with which beer websites (BeerAdvocate, The New School, etc) are acceptable. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New template available for sorting awards

Hi! Just wanted to draw your attention to a new template {{Awards table sorting}} which may be of interest. It can be used in tables of awards won by breweries, such Pabst Brewing Company#Awards and Archipelago Brewery#Awards, to ensure that the awards are sorted in a sensible order. Cheers! — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen Elizabeth II connection

According to this page on the Carlsberg group site,

“1664” was created in 1952 to celebrate the coronation of Queen Elisabeth II.

Weird. I'll make the change to the 1664 (beer) article. Scarabocchio (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of this page for class!

Hello! I am a college student in a Digital Humanities class, and was asked to review a Wikipedia page for an assignment and post it to the talk page, so here it is!

"One of the very first things that struck me as out of place was the Article Assessments table insert. The opening page is welcoming and informative, but the graph under that info is distracting to some important topics. May or may not just be my ADHD though (haha). The article was stated to have been made in 2005, so this tells me that it's a mature page that probably is updated regularly with active participants. I do love the other use of color and graphics though, as it helps the reader to figure out what each link is leading them to. The article appears very neutral, only stating facts and information on the topic. It seems very well-represented, as there are loads of links to take you to more and more information on the subject of beer and every aspect about it, even including home brewing. This article reaches a wide audience and has the information to aid in that. There are many linked references near the bottom of the first page, stating where the info came from and how to join. The citations seemed to represent the info on the page well, and the links to those sites worked as well. Within these references, though, it seems to be very European. Most of the pages reference "pubs" and France, Belgium, and Great Britain, and there is only one link to American-style pubs. The Talk page is full of helpful members offering information to be added to the article, and seems very professional and cordial. There is no rating on the talk page. Overall the entire article seems slick and pristine, well-done!" ~~~~ Alyssadarby18 (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey's Taproom

Bailey's Taproom has been nominated for deletion, if project members care to weigh in. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]