Talk:List of hop varieties

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of hop varieties article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Beer Mid‑importance

	Beer portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beer, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Beer, Brewery, and Pub related articles 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.BeerWikipedia:WikiProject BeerTemplate:WikiProject BeerBeer
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Standardising info

What information do we want to include here? I reckon we want to include the following for each hop, with an optional comment, too:

Name
Origin
Alpha
Beta

Any thoughts on other info we might want to include, or how to incorporate it? -- Mark Chovain 04:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see information on origin for all of the varieties, should that coloumn perhaps be called just information or details? Million_Moments (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A word to the wise - if you want this page to stay, you'll have to add references indicating where you got the various percentages etc. from. Also, statements such as "Typical American citric pine hop with notable grapefruit and pineapple flavours." definately need to be backed up with documented evidence, otherwise it will fall foul of various important Wikipedia guidelines.... CultureDrone (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on changing it to a table. I absolutely agree that the sourcing needs improvement. I didn't actually create this page, by the way - it was split from Hops so we could focus on these kind of things; but I just haven't had the time since :(.

For the record though, pages are rarely deleted for being unsourced. As long as the subject is notable (a quick Google search will show that), then the page should stay. Disputed claims on the other hand should be removed. I personally think most of the tasting notes should go, as they are subjective, and hard to back up. Most of the acid percentages are easily sourced through the USDA though - I'll add a blanket ref for now, and will look at doing them individually shortly. -- Mark Chovain 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I should have read your edit summary more closely ! Re articles being deleted from lack of sources - very true, but they have been deleted for lack of sources if it looks like they're violating WP:OR - and those tasting notes seemed to push it into that area. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beta and CoH stats

I'm going to get rid of the beta acid and cohumulone stats. These are not really defining characteristics like the alpha acid percentage, and can be gathered from other sources if anyone really needs them. I don't mind the beta acids going back in if anyone objects, but the CoH levels are just too detailed for such a list. -- Mark Chovain 00:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henham variety

I've come across a reference to an old variety of hop called the Henham. Its name comes from the Henham family who were farmers in East Peckham, Kent in the C19th. Source is a leaflet by the Churches Conservation Trust about St Michael's church, East Peckham. Is this variety within the scope of the list? Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table vs. Sections

Last week, I came to this article and converted it from a regular table to a sortable one, which I thought was a nice change, because then you could (crudely) sort by alpha. Crudely, since I'm ignorant of the wikipedia format. It was nice to cluster the hops by their alpha rather than alphabetically. Anyway, since then SilkTork changed it to sections, for "Wikilinking" purposes. Although I'm not against Wikilinking, I don't like this new format.

I came to this page last week looking to see what hops were similar to Hallertauer/Tettnanger in terms of alpha (because I'm making a Munich Helles and I am doing research). Ideally (for me, and I expect I'm not alone) this would be a sortable table, where one could see similar alpha, beta, country of origin, etc, and compare similar hops.

I don't know but I suspect there is a better perspective for displaying this information. Ideas? 72.93.87.3 (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a simplified table - though I note that the Alpha acid column is not fully sortable - perhaps because it spreads across a range. The table needs attention - though there are a number of aspects of the article that need attention, so it's a question of which is the more important. The article is in need of sourcing - that is a priority. And there are some aspects of the article which appear to be more manual than encyclopedia - I am unclear of the encyclopedia value of naming "substitutes", though I can see the "how-to" appeal of it. I'd like to see this list develop in a robust manner to become a useful resource for the general reader, and to gently move it away from being a "how-to" resource for home-brewers. SilkTork *^YES! 00:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]