User talk:SilkTork/Beer Archive/Beer2006

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.

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)

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)

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!

For Good Works on Beer Cats
Presented by Syrthiss

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)

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)

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)

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!).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Beer footnotes

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

Comments

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

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)

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.

Beer

Yeah, but then there will be a bunch of drunk gguys at their computers going lkjhlghfewaglkjhfsaglnwfdlhglkjshglfeshglfg for every alcohol article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardkselby (talk • contribs)

There already are! SilkTork 13:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing: Beer

Hi Silk Tork. I see you are a beer afficianado like myself. Regarding the inclusion of the internal link to "beer drinking records" under the general category of "beer", I felt that beer drinking records (not other alcohol consumption records) would be appropriate and should be referenced from the "beer" category. I agree that a beer drinking record sub-section is probably not appropriate under "beer", but certainly a link to beer drinking records is as appropriate as the current link to "pub games" since speed beer drinking certainly is a pub game at most pubs I have frequented. I removed the "merge" suggestions on "beer drinking records" as it had been up for several weeks with no ensuing discussion. I will leave it up to see if discussion ensues. I think it is not appropriate to have "beer drinking records" merged into "Guinness world records" as Guinness apparently is no longer accepting eating or drinking records out of fear of litigation, and a beer drinking record could be alternately established outside of Guinness (i.e. Ripleys believe it or Not, etc.). Your thoughts? Apparent Logic 11:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I see you are now working on the Beer games article. I think that is the most appropriate place for the speed drinking record as that article already contains references to speed drinking. Happy editing. I hope to see you contribute to more beer articles. Why not join: Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer.

Apparent Logic 22:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Just signed up. Thanks.

Hi Silk Tork: You and I realize that the link to World Beer Drinking Records is there via the "Beer Culture" link since we have both worked on it, but an uninformed user who visits the beer page would not know that. The user needs to click on the subcategory "Beer culture" then know enough to click on "Drinking Culture" when he arrives at the second page. Additionally, when you search for "Beer Drinking Records" that page was replaced by a redirect to "Drinking Culture" by you, and the user needs to scan the contents to realize the sub-section is there. That's 3 redirects. I don't think adding a direct link to the section under the "Beer" category "duplicates the link", it just clarifies that the section is present and facilitates navigation to it. I design websites and understand how the average user navigates. To suppose that someone would understand that "records" were under "beer culture" would be a mistake. Perhaps 1 in 100 people would be able to find the final link. I feel that a link to "beer records" in a category discussing beer is just as worthy as one to "Pub games", "Pub crawl", and "Public house", which you do not have a problem with. Do you agree? Apparent Logic 14:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• There are various aspects of beer. Not all aspects can or should be directly linked from the main beer article, otherwise it would become overheavy with links. The best thing that can be done is to group related interests together in one article or category and then link to that category. It's certainly worth considering if Pub games and Pub crawl and Public house are all needed. Though I think you are being very playful when you suggest that a redundant and unknown beer drinking record is significant enough to deserve a direct link. SilkTork 14:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've fiddled a bit to include a more direct link to drinking games. See what you think. SilkTork 14:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

When you're making a huge change to a collaborative project — as you just did to WikiProject:Beer's goals and then before that in trying to eliminate Category:Microbreweries — you've got, got, got to seek Wikipedia:Consensus. That means at least some discussion beforehand, somewhere where people interested in the subject will know to look for it.

Yes, I know, WP:BOLD. See the "Note also..." section in that guideline. --Stlemur 12:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your objection. I understand that you are not happy with my rewording of the goals. The Goals section was written a while ago and needed adjusting. "Getting stewed to the brim" is amusing frat talk, but is not suitable for a serious encyclopedia project. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing process. If you are not happy with my exact wording, then please make adjustments. That's what this open policy is about. A total revert is not the most delicate way of editing and tends to lead to hostility. Which wording would you be happier with? SilkTork 12:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't "reword" the goals, you substantively changed them without discussion. What I would be happy with is discussion. --Stlemur 13:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done a little more rewording. I've done it in stages to make it easier to undo sections. Have a look and let me know what you think. SilkTork 13:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Guinness Storehouse

Great, didn't realise there was already an article. It's probably worth mentioning in the article that you can't actually visit the brewery - only the exhibition in the storehouse. Stevage 08:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Beer

Please, please raise items regarding beer for discussion before blindly doing nerges. I've reversed your merge of Burton upon Trent brewing. Noisy | Talk 09:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! I'm pleased you have an interest in getting involved in doing beer articles. But please do not revert in future without making contact with me - there is a reason for my actions, and if you can't immediately see the reason then we can talk about it. This is less hostile than a blunt revert which can result in a degree of bad feeling. The article in question was a copy of material already found in the Burton upon Trent. That material remains there, as it does reflect a significant portion of that town's history. The other appropriate place for the material is in a general history of the development of beer history in England, which is where I placed it. Having the same material in three places is perhaps too much, don't you think? I await your response. SilkTork 10:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To let you know. I've again redirected the sub-article to the main article. I have given explanations in the edit summaries. But to make it clear: The English beer article is the main article on the history and development of beer and brewing in England. As such a section on the brewing in Burton upon Trent is appropriate. Other sections on the history and development of beer in England can and will be added to that article. A section on the brewing industry in Burton is appropriate in the general article on Burton, so the current section stays there. Both those articles will need further editing and developing. A slightly different focus will emerge from the two articles. In the Burton article the focus will be on the impact of brewing on the town, in the Beer article the focus will be on the impact of Burton on beer. I hope this is clear. Any questions let me know. SilkTork 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that other people on the project got in ahead of me, and reversed your edits. We don't have to finish Wikipedia tomorrow, you know: we have got a fair bit of time before the universe's computing power runs out. Just propose things before madly rushing ahead and doing them, and you'll find out in the fullness of time whether you have got consensus for your actions. Category:Articles to be merged tells you what the templates are and how to go about things. Noisy | Talk 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Minardi's 2 Cents

Thanks, Witht the Burton On Trent brewing article I thought that it was "taking over" the towns article, so I moved it out. I do though, totally agree with your explanation above, and I think its the way to go. Maybe stick a redirect on Burton On Trent Brewing? It is a very important subject in the area. As for me, i'm only here to keep making steady small edits as its all I have time and inclination for. I keep trying to make the place better though!

re: let's talk

SilkTort, thanks for the message. No, at this time I don't really have a direct problem with your edits or personality. I'm not subscribed to all, of the beer articles yet and much of what you do I don't see. I was responding to the concerns of other users and really wanted to head off a major confrontation before it got started. I stand by my comments regarding merging — I think that consensus should be sought first. And, let me assure you, it generally is. You will piss off a lot of people by what is effectively deleting an article without discussing it first. But you may want to find that out for yourself. I saw the complaints on Wikiproject:Beer, and I looked at your talk page archives which had people begging you to stop unilaterally recategorizing articles. The guy on the Wikiproject thinks that you are a troll. That's bad. I've been here a long time and I've seen very valuable editors and even friends driven away because they could not edit collaboratively and I was just trying to defuse a conflict by presenting my views. Please keep in mind that I scolded the other poster for calling you a troll. — goethean ॐ 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Stlemur's reply

Well, first, I do feel like you're being aggressive in your edits. WP:BOLD is one thing, but it's not a universal excuse; you shouldn't just delete a category or an article without consensus, and there are well-established procedures for seeing if there is such a consensus. This is the case with Category:Microbreweries, where, according to the vote, there is no support for deleting that category other than yours.

Second of all, I feel like you're obfuscating and evasive in responding to criticism and questions. For example, here:

"When you're making a huge change to a collaborative project — as you just did to WikiProject:Beer's goals and then before that in trying to eliminate Category:Microbreweries — you've got, got, got to seek Wikipedia:Consensus. That means at least some discussion beforehand, somewhere where people interested in the subject will know to look for it.

Yes, I know, WP:BOLD. See the "Note also..." section in that guideline. --Stlemur 12:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your objection. I understand that you are not happy with my rewording of the goals. The Goals section was written a while ago and needed adjusting. "Getting stewed to the brim" is amusing frat talk, but is not suitable for a serious encyclopedia project. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing process. If you are not happy with my exact wording, then please make adjustments. That's what this open policy is about. A total revert is not the most delicate way of editing and tends to lead to hostility. Which wording would you be happier with? SilkTork 12:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't "reword" the goals, you substantively changed them without discussion. What I would be happy with is discussion. --Stlemur 13:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done a little more rewording. I've done it in stages to make it easier to undo sections. Have a look and let me know what you think. SilkTork 13:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)"

I was quite clear in saying what my objection was, and you simply did not address what I was talking about.

Finally, sometimes it seems like you're making edits that indicate a real misunderstanding of the subject matter. For example, [[Talk:Mash ingredients#Merge with Adjunct (beer) would be a bad idea]]|here:

"We do need a detailed article on the differing malts, and this is a brilliant start - though at the moment this is mainly about homebrewing malts which are different to commercial brewing malts. The section on British malts gives the game away as no commercial brewer uses a "mild" malt.

I propose this is developed as a homebrewing article. The adjuncts article is being developed with world-wide commercial brewing in mind, so would not be an appropriate merge with that. Also, it would be good to keep adjuncts, malts and hops separate in their own articles. Some information can be taken from here and used in the Malt article - though care has to be taken that homebrewing information is not transposed - the processes and ingredients do differ. SilkTork 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)"

This is just plain wrong. There is no substantive difference between commercial and homebrewing malts, the article is not specifically a homebrewing article and there's nothing in there that makes it so, and I named three major British breweries right off the bat that use mild malt. And yet, by the time you'd initiated the discussion, you'd already made the recategorization.

And it isn't just me saying this; looking back over your talk archive, people have been raising these issues with your editing style since at least January. Based on all that, do you see why it comes across to me as deliberately disruptive? --Stlemur 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Noisy's reply

I notice that you've used 'arrogant' in trying to describe how you perceive that others may see your edits. I don't see that at all, just someone who's very impetuous.

From your user page I see that you are the same age as me to within a couple of years, so I think that I can recognise in you a few of the traits that I have, and a few of the cycles of frustration that I have been through in my career on Wikipedia. One of the characteristics I have is that I've been around the block a few times, so I recognise problems - and have the solutions - that those who are a bit younger don't have the perspective to see. With this viewpoint I proceed to make edits based on experience ... but people who follow along behind don't have the background, or know the assumptions I'm working on, and start raising a stink. Having recognised this happening, I now take things a lot slower and am prepared to back down for the time being with the expectation that in the fullness of time people will come around and do things in a sensible fashion.

There have been a few times when I have nearly blown my top with frustration:

• the advent of categories seemed like a good idea, until authors started using them for every conceivable thing under the sun, rather than proceeding along a well-defined path or following an existing cataloguing system
• Jimbo started imposing censorship based on his own values, rather than those of the community
• administrators started quoting WP:IAR as if it was one of the four basic principles that govern Wikipedia, rather than the very last resort.

When faced with circumstances like these, you can either face up to them and try argument and logic in an attempt to change opinions, in which case you'll get nowhere, and have a heart attack; or you can bite your tongue and go and correct spelling mistakes for a week or two until you have the blinding revelation that this is only the internet, and not real life. Losing a battle here - or even the war - will only affect your self-esteem, and not your relationship with those you work with, live with or go down the pub with.

Until you reach the understanding that everyone else who edits on Wikipedia is a tosser, and it doesn't matter what the hell they think of you, you'll just come up against one stressful situation after another.

There is no right and wrong here; just what other people let you get away with. My advice: follow the policies and guidelines unless they're patently stupid; vote for good things and against bad things; if someone reverts you, go and do something else in a totally different area, like vandal patrol ... and at least once a month take a whole day off. Noisy | Talk 00:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is for you?  :-) Noisy | Talk 10:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Pypex's reply

My main contention was basically you went against the then status quo with restructuring and moving pages, but considering your 100% more qualified to talk about beer than me I can't complain. Considering the hours you've put in I don't see that anyone can have much cause for complaint.

I have to agree with Noisy in saying that everyone else on wikipedia is a tosser, and that every time you edit someones work you potentially attract flack, and there are many members who will fight you to the bitter end to preserve there paragraph. Sadly these people also seem to work there way quickly up the wiki hierarchy.

Wikipedia is a twat run bureaucracy and every time you make an edit you piss someone off. If it ever comes to RFC then i'll be fighting your corner.--Pypex 01:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Brewbox, microbreweries category

Hi there. I'm sorry to have made the sort of comment I did without staying around to be part of the discussion. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia lately.

So on to my concerns... First off, my main annoyance was with your previous brewbox-related edits and I let my failure to express myself fully about those changes at the time they happened seep into the microbrewery discussion. That was inappropriate and I apologize. In the case of the brewboxes, I felt that a clear concensus was established by usage of the brewboxes (if not by discussion). Your decision to change it to a mailing address box at the bottom of the article (instead of an infobox) went beyond the as yet unresolved discussion about whether to include a beer list in the brewbox. I felt that that was unilateral.

As for the changes regarding Category:Microbreweries, I think that it was the result of a genuine misunderstanding of the concensus reached in the Category Name Change discussion. It seems that you thought the decision to group the regional beer and brewery categories into combined "beer and breweries" categories meant that the microbreweries categories needed to go. Others (myself included) seemed to feel that this applied only to the combination of the regional beer categories with their associated regional breweries categories. The Wikipedia category scheme is not a strict tree and there is no reason that there cannot be other axes of categorization under Category:Beer (look at Category:People or Category:Russia for instance). Your objection that "microbrewery" and "craft brewery" cannot be defined in a way that allows for verifiable categorization is a valid point for discussion, but you should have brought it up with the Beer WikiProject (you may have done so since, but I'm not watching the project's talk page).

That being said, you are right that concensus is not required for every change, especially from a relatively inactive group like WikiProject Beer. However, for me the idea of collaborative editing is that you should strive to gauge the current overall concensus on a topic and edit mercilessly along those lines. If you want to work against the current perceived concensus, start a discussion. Mike Dillon 04:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I finally did it.

Yes, I've been less active than I should be lately, but after a few gentle prods I finally put my two cents into the brewery poll. :) – ClockworkSoul 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Giant Beer Bottle - just for fun !

Textbot 09:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Here's a link to a bottle really in my kitchen ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Karlsson_bottle.jpg#filelinks I think you will enjoy. Thanks for your beer work !

Hi, and some questions.

I've been wondering, is there a way to know what sites need to be addressed? Or rather, is there some sort of outline/list that states problem/incomplete beer sites that need to be updated or expanded? I'd be more than happy to help out, in any way possible, but I feel like a may be stepping on toes.

I am not entirely familiar with the behind the scenes wikipedia, such as this, but I am rather knowledgeable about beer. Specifically the Great Lakes region of craft breweries, and more specifically yet, Wisconsin craft breweries.

Again, I'm more than happy to contribute, but any input/advice/mentoring would be greatly appreciated, and I would love to continue sharing my knowledge with the rest of my fellow beer/wikipedia lovers.

thanks in advance

sean

beer articles

Are you still contributing to wiki beer articles? I was on the receiving end of so much ill-informed abuse when I tried to correct some of the glaring errors they conatin that I´ve given up. Are there any Europeans involved any more?Patto1ro 12:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that you are here I might be encouraged to get involved again. If you look at some of the history you might note that I encountered a lot of hostile flack a while ago. I lost interest after that. SilkTork 10:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've given up because I was spending too much of my valuable time arguing with idiots. Mikebe is continuing the struggle. MAybe you should have a word with him.Patto1ro 10:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

beer discussion

Hi. Could you please stop by the beer project talk page and contribute your thoughts to the discussion of removing US POV material from non-US beer pages? Many thanks. Mikebe 13:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: I'm Back!

Welcome back. Glad to see you're willing to continue your involvement in the WP:Beer project since it needs all the help it can get. I don't think anything particularly interesting happened while you were away, given that the project is generally so quiet. For my part, I unified the components of the "brewbox" and "beerbox" into {{Infobox Brewery}} and {{Infobox Beer}} (except for the beer lists in the brewbox, which I know you're not a fan of). I also did some category reorganization, creating Category:WikiProject Beer templates and Category:WikiProject Beer participants; not sure if I did that before or after you left. The participants category hasn't gotten much adoption aside from me and User:Daniel11 (the person who started WP:Beer). I think personally it's a lot cooler than a participants list on the project page, since I generally don't add myself to those lists. Mike Dillon 16:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Beer Portal

Hi, I'd be happy to talk to you about the beer portals. I have been a avid Wikipedia reader and a serious beer drinker myself for quite some time and only recently discovered there was a Beer Portal. I have been putting up the links just to increase awareness for the Wikiproject and hopefully bring others who could potentially help to it.--BrokenStoic 15:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hiya. Sorry to disapeer for a few days. I don't think the portal link needs to be at the top of every page, but putting it at the bottom in "More Information" wouldn't be a bad idea, just to let people know it's out there, but without having it dominate the article itself. Certainly see what others have to say about it though.--BrokenStoic 03:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, have encountered your contributions on various sites including beerintheevening.com and ratebeer.com... glad to see you here too! --SandyDancer 23:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Stout

The co-editing was my fault. I tend to notice articles when they pop up on my watchlist and consequently tend to edit them at the same time as other users. Stout is looking good. I like the references. — goethean ॐ 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork 10:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Czech beer

Hey SilkTork. How do you like the photo I added some time ago at the top of the article? Isn't that just the healthiest looking mug of dark lager you ever saw? Took it myself on a visit to the Klásterní Pivovar Strahov, Prague. I wanted to ask - do you think that microbrewery needs / deserves an article? --SandyDancer 00:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be a very minor brewery. There has been some discussion on the notability of breweries. Take a look: Wikipedia:Notability (breweries). You are welcome to add your own comments, and/or edit the proposal itself. While not conclusive, there was a general feeling that breweries could be started off in a regional article. So a mention of Klásterní Pivovar Strahov in the Czech beer article would be a good starting point. Any references or sources you have would be very welcome. SilkTork 00:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Beer Style Chart

I noticed you put in a chart on the Beer style page. I was wondering if we could chat a bit about it. I think the use of an image in that manner makes it entirely too cubersome to edit, especially for an issue as contengious as beer style can be. I relaize it may be a rough draft but I feel like it might not be the best avenue to pursue. (Full Disclosure-I have been working on the Beer style box, which pretty much covers the same info.)--BrokenStoic 08:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. It was put on the main beer page, and I moved it to the beer style page. I added the comment that it was one particular view out of many, just to tone it down a bit. Then I was going to raise the issue with others - including the guy who placed it on the beer page. I haven't yet got around to the raising the issue part. SilkTork 08:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we might be crossing wires here. See my notes on Talk:Beer style. --Stlemur 08:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like we're in agreement. The style chart is awkward as currently presented, but there may be some value in having an example or two of such charts in the article. SilkTork 00:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)