Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer/Archive 1

Bass Brewers Limited
	;
Location	Burton-on-Trent, Staffodshire; United Kingdom
Owner	Coors Brewing Company
Year opened	1777
Annual production	8.5 million UK barrels
Active beers
Bass Export	English pale ale
Bass Pale Ale	English pale ale
No. 1	English barley wine
Our Finest Ale	English pale ale
Worthington 1744	English pale ale
Worthington Creamflow Bitter	English bitter

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Infobox

How's this look for an infobox? Obviously, instead of the image I have here we would use a picture of the bottle or the beer's logo, but I didn't have any of those available. What do you think? – Clockwork Soul 18:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Infobox for a brand or brewery

I chose these colors because they're reminiscent of the colors of a good, well, beer.

Infobox for particular beer

This is my idea for an infobox for a brand or brewery; I inverted the colors for this one.

Victory Old Horizontal
Victory Old Horizontal
Style	American barley wine
Brewery	Victory Brewing Company
Location	Downingtown, PA United States
Availabilty	Fall seasonal
Color	Dark red
Alcohol	11.00% ABV
This article forms part of a series on beers and breweries of the world.

Quick response

Those look superb. As I said on your talk page, I have a few questions, though I'm very tired now and will probably forget some of them -- I'll come back tomorrow with anything I've forgotten and any new questions after I've slept on it.

First, should there be somewhere on the infobox where it says "Beer" or the like, and takes you either to the beer page or to some other hub for all the project-related articles?

And for the country of origin, should it perhaps link instead to something like Canadian beer, rather than to the actual country (e.g. Canada)?

I like the color schemes very much, and think we should use something similar in the Project Notice.

For the categories, it looks like you've done a pretty complete job... this is one area where I'm most liable to have forgotten any suggestions I had... Anyway, for the Availability, what did you have in mind? Is it mostly for seasonal beers, as you've used it in the example, or is it also for things like regional availability? Is it an essential category to have?

Gah, ok, I'm really exhausted and have forgotten any other issues I'd wanted to bring up. Well, thanks again for all the great material so far, as I say those infoboxes look really svelte. Look forward to hearing from you.

--Daniel11 11:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel: I hope you slept well. I've been thinking about your suggestions, and I made a few changes. Regarding the "availability", its mostly for seasonal beers, but "year round" would be appropriate entry also. I figure it can be an "optional" feature of the infobox. Chances are, we're not going to be using the "beer" box much (not every beer needs its own article).

Regarding nationality: the only reason I don't want to do that is because the only nation that has its own nationality beer page seems to be Canada. I think we should probably try to standardize, especially if the infoboxes are to be made into templates. Later on, when we get a few more "X-ian beer" pages up, we could always work them in.

The beer link I had some trouble with... I didn't want to force it in and damage the "flow" of the box, and I also assumed that the word "beer" would also be in the article body. Given those factors, I added a small "notice" to the bottom of both boxes. Let me know what you think.

– Clockwork Soul 17:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hiya,

The "availability" field makes sense with your explanation. When you say it'd be an "optional" feature of the infobox, does that mean it wouldn't show up if we don't use it, or just that we shouldn't feel compelled to fill it in for each beer?

About the idea of not having many beer boxes (because most beers won't have their own article), one thing I had in mind is that we could still deal with most or all beers, by including them on their brewers' pages instead of giving them their own. I've mocked up a rough version of what that would look like here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Beer/Examples/Example1. I didn't get all the formatting worked out perfectly, but that's the rough idea. What do you think?

I agree with you on the nationality: since there appears to be only the one beer-nationality page, we should probably hold off on that. (Where you wrote "X-ian beer," I though "Oh no, now there's not just Christian rock and so on, but Christian beer, too!). I like the way you worked the beer and brewery links into the infoboxes.

The Project Notice also looks swell. Is it ok to start using it? And I like the beer-stub template too. Could we add an image (either the one from the Project Notice template or anything similar) to the beer-stub field as well?

Oh yeah.. and is there any reason why "Brewery" is repeated twice in the particular beer infobox?

Thanks again for all the stuff you've put together so far. I'm pretty amazed at how fast you got all that up, and looking perfect, too.

--Daniel11 06:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, and having all the beers on their brewers' pages would entail turning all the gazillions of individual beer links (e.g. see List of commercial brands of beer) into redirects to the appropriate brewery (a policy that might make sense anyway). --Daniel11 07:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like what I've done. I'm especially happy with the project notce (we can start using it; I already have). We can't use the beer-stub just yet though: we have a stub-approval process to navigate (and stub icons have been turned off temporarily: it will be back when the image server has its load reduced). As for the individual beers, what you have drafted will be very tough to do. Consider this: Magic Hat Brewing Company is actively producing 22 beers, and that's not counting the retired and special edition beers – and it's a fairly small brewery. If we use a great big infobox for each beer, those pages will be massive (as you can see, I've started using the "brewboxes" already :) ). In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that each individual beer is notable enough to be listed, really... Oh, and I fixed that typo on the example "individual beer" infobox (keep in mind, it's not yet ready for prime time!) – Clockwork Soul 07:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, good to know we can start using the notice. (I just added it to the list of WikiProject notices). I see your point about the massive scale if you include all beers -- that's a tough one. Oh, I did run into one of your brewboxes, on a Canadian brewery no less ;) .. hm, any thoughts on how to deal with multiple beers? I'm gonna have a smoke, think on it... --Daniel11 07:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We should probably concentrate on completing brewery articles and cleaning up the articles on styles of beers. I don't think that we should consider attacking the minutae of individual beers until we near completion of that "low hanging fruit". Oh, by the way, click here to see all the pages that carry the brewbox template. What I like best is that I didn't even do all of them! :) – Clockwork Soul 07:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Awesome :)

Sounds like a good plan of attack. Bottoms up! --Daniel11 07:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I really like the brewbox. I didn't think it was experimental when I first saw it, and began using it right away. (I might steal the idea for the mostly dormant WikiProject Malt Whisky). I'd like to suggest another optional section, describing what type of brewery it is, eg microbrewery, regional brewery, national brewery, international brewing empire, ect. Right after the owner, and before the list of beers might be a good place to put it. Gentgeen 20:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The brewbox is pretty much final. The good thing about using templates like we are is that I can make any changes I need to in the template itself, and all the pages will update accordingly. (No copy/paste boxes here!) Brewery categories: I was thinking about something along those lines; the type of brewery is linked to the annual production, so maybe we can associate it somehow with that element? – Clockwork Soul 20:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The infoboxes rock! How's the table on Brewing industry look to you guys? I just updated it to have the same colour schema. Hooloovoo 18:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the brewery brewbox is great and the Availability field is important - some breweries do produce beers for particualr seasons. As the for the brewbox for individual beers - I think it might be better just to use them for the one beer that a brewery is particularly well known for.

Wikiproject beer

What do you think of this: Template:Beer ?

"Types" vs "Styles"

Though Wiki currently uses the term "types" to represent the myriad varieties of beer, but the correct term is "styles". Should we take it upon ourselves to correct this oversight, or just leave things as the status quo for now? – Clockwork Soul 15:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm for switching over to "styles." --Daniel11 16:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ditto. The wikiproject for a particular subject gets to set the standard terminology ;). Gentgeen 20:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Beer styles" is poor English and it seems to be incorrect for an article like happoshu which categorically is about a type of beer rather than a "style" of beer. --DannyWilde 00:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you speaking about general usage? Because words often have subtly different meanings in specific fields. --Daniel11 00:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC) (Also, maybe it would make sense to continue this discussion down below, in the appropriate comment section at the bottom of the page.)

'Style of Beer' is the standard term in my beer encyc. --Buridan 14:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Question about styles

I've added a brewbox (btw do you think the brewbox is ready to be listed on the project's front page now?) to the article on Boreale, and I was wondering whether I've linked the styles of beer properly. For instance, should there be a link to American pale ale, for which there's no article as of yet, or should the link be something like American pale ale, since American pale ale is a kind of pale ale? Please let me know if I made any other kind of mistake, too. --Daniel11 10:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I figure it would be easiest place a redirect redirect from all the pale ale types from, say American pale ale and english pale ale to pale ale. Thus, we have the best of both worlds. If necessary, we can expand the redirects later. – ClockworkSoul 14:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- OK, sounds good. --Daniel11 14:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there a template for beer styles yet? If not, I have some ideas I've been working on. Allegrorondo

It seems that nobody on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting objects. Normally, we would have waited a week, but considering how many stub articles that we have that need a uniform stubbing, I that it's okay to use now. – Clockwork Soul 15:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notability standards

I was thinking that we should probably come up with some kind of notability standard regarding our articles. How large should a brewery be before it gets an article here? I'm thinking any brewery with an annual production of greater than about 15,000 barrels (17,600 hectoliters) is notable enough: that's anything rated above a microbreweries. We probably shouldn't bother to write articles on individual beers at this time, either, and focus mostly on breweries, beer styles, and other major beer-related topics. What do you guys think? – Clockwork Soul 18:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider myself a very good judge of what's notable, so I won't put forward any original opinion on this. Your suggestion sounds reasonable to me, so you have my support for doing it that way. --Daniel11 22:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reckon that even microbreweries can be notable, as long as their product(s) is/are? Or if they're the oldest surviving brewery in a region, or the only (known) brewer in an area, or the only brewer of a specific style of beer, etc. --Hooloovoo 12:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont think there should be a strict production level for notability; see my objections to the VfD for Hog's Back Brewery.Justinc 14:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While we all love typing articles about our favourite brewers and beer, I reckon that more work needs to be done on the styles and general information about beer, such as the fermentation article. We also need some formal way of categorising the beer (are we going to do it by styles, countries, etc.). It appears that most have been done under a format similar to "Australian beer", so we should probably keep this form. Also we should decide how to classify breweries. Also "Types of beer" category should probably be changed to "Styles of beer" to keep consistent.

I have been creating more categories like this, as national differences are important in beer generally. It is best to write an article called eg English beer before creating Category:English beer; some of these articles dont yet have categories. Then I have added Category:English breweries to file the breweries in, as a subcat of English beer and the appropriate companies category. Justinc 14:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also I believe a beer can be judged notable (and hence worthy of an article) if more than one or two sentences can be written. --3mta3 14:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Annual production

Anyone have any idea of a good place to find up-to-date information on the annual production of a given brewery? BeerMe.com has some information, but isn't complete. --BaronLarf 17:14, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

For incorporated breweries, they generally have an annual report on their website. The smaller ones seem to be much less willing to report their production. In researching Oregon breweries, I used the website of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which by law records the amount of barrels sold in Oregon. That's not quite the same, but it gives a minimum, and lets you make a good estimate. —Sean κ. ⇔ 18:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

File:Beerflagtest.jpg

Nationalities

Hey, about time I posted here.. I was thinking that there should be some sort of flag system where there's a mini flag of the country where the beer/brewery origins, if the brewery is lets say Corona, there would be a mini-Mexican flag, of course there's already the nation listed where its from but a mini flag would be pretty neat IMHO. -Glamour_Boy

Here's an example I whipped up.. ignore the (((Caption))) parts, and a logo would go where it says "logo here"

We actually threw that idea around a bit. We ended up deciding against it because it would be too much of a pain to standardize in the template, at least at this point. Also, if we were to so it, I think it would make sense to put it in the "location field". Oh, by the way, the production field is for the amount of beer produced. ;) – Clockwork Soul 13:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a flag. I put them onto the aticle List of islands by area and I regret it. I find it slows the page down. Also, since beers are licenced to be brewed by others (example Bass (beer) it will be difficult to keep up to date. I bet there is lots of other todo's.Cafe Nervosa | talk 20:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have absolutely no time on my hands, you can leave the whole flag thing up to me, I'll end up getting bored anyways, the more work I do on subjects I love.. the better.. pretty weird "eh"? Some brewers don't disclose some simple information like that.... i don't know why. -Glamour_Boy

New article: Maß

Just added an article on the Bavarian maß. Maybe add to it if you know more, or link to it in articles related to Bavarian beer traditions? --Sean Kelly 07:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's an excellent addition! Honestly, I have no idea what to do with it, but we'll think of something! – ClockworkSoul 07:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've added US + UK pint conversions, for starters ;) --Hooloovoo 12:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There best maß (stein) ever

Cafepress sells tons of Wikipedia shirts and various other things, including [www.cafepress.com/wikipedia.20067447 this goodie]. I think I'll buy 2! – Clockwork Soul 12:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would it be cricket to add that image to the maß article? I mean with it linking to Wikipedia's cafepress store and all. For one I don't mind, but would it be too obvious a fundraising drive? ;) Hooloovoo 13:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We already have the image: it's used on stein. It would be fine to add it. – Clockwork Soul 23:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beer on the dutch wikipedia

Ok, I've recently started to catalgogue/extend articles on beer on the dutch wikipedia, wich is my primary interest, http://nl.wiki.x.io/wiki/Categorie:Biersoort it might be a source of information for some people here, the most important one's are in a box so don't require extensive knowledge of dutch :), also I'm trying to take pictures of the Belgian beer glassess and beers, so, taking a look on commons under my nick might be interesting. If you're looking for other pictures, http://hekla.rave.org are all my own, leave me a message wich ones are good and I'll upload them to commons.

Gueuze10 from your site would be nice, currently expanding gueuze and lambic related stuff. Justinc 12:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks for adding that to commons - will use it as soon as I get a chance. It would also be good to do the cross-wiki language links - things like Payottenland, also not sure that Dutch beers are well covered in English Wiki - especially the red beers which are interesting as they appear in Netherlands and US, bot not many other places - just a thought. Justinc 23:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notable?

Does anyone think the Heartland Brewery is notable? It's probably too small, but it is notable in that it's that only microbrewery in New York City (that I've found at least). --Sean κ. ⇔ 18:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would say so, sure. Go ahead and create it, and if somebody doesn't like it, they can post it to vfd. – ClockworkSoul 18:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Only microbrewery in NYC? What about Brooklyn Brewery? Chelsea Brewing company (brewpub)? Harlem Brewing Company? New Amsterdam? The West End (brewpub)? Al 14:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Heartland is probably notable. They have multiple locations as well. In fact, although the project page as a goal has cataloguing all "notable breweries," I would say that all commercial breweries (as opposed to brewpubs) are notable, and I am not a rabid inclusionist by any means. There's just not that many breweries. And as mentioned, Heartland Brewery is a brewpub, not a brewery. There are several brewpubs in NYC as mentioned above, but I think the Brooklyn Brewery is the only true brewery within city limits. Even they contract out all their bottled lines upstate, only the kegged product is brewed in-house. Harlem Brewing is all contract. Not sure about New Amsterdam. Most of the others mentioned are brewpubs, there's several others such as the Greenwich Brewing Company. NTK 00:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Adopt a beer/brewery

A (perhaps silly) proposal to you Beeropedians... but how about letting members of this project adopt a specific beer or brewery?

A Beeropedian can adopt a beer/brewery indefinitely, or for a specific time in which they plan to make a lot of edits.
- An adoption notice on the talk page could focus edits and prevent conflicts that would result in rollbacks
- It would hopefully raise the level of contributions made to individual articles so they may sooner reach Featured Article status.
To unstub an article someone could adopt an article temporarily to raise the standard enough that removal of the stub notice is warranted.

I'd like to start this notion off by adopting Heineken for the remainder of this week. Yours truly, Hooloovoo 12:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like the way you're thinking (and I like "Beeropedians", too) but I think that adopting a beer/brewery sounds a bit like "claiming" an article, especially because to unstub any article you shouldn't need to claim it. Perhaps for the same effect, while also encouraging others to help out, we could have one or more beer article(s) of the week that we can choose to focus on. What do you think? – Clockwork Soul 13:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont think you need an adoption notice. The way I work is to make edits quite small so that conflicts rarely happen, just add a few paragraphs or sentences at a time. It would be nice to get a reasonable number of articles up to good quality as soon as possible though. Justinc 13:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to actually lay claim to an article, that would be a very unwiki thing to do. I was thinking more like a notice on the talk page: Beeropedian Hooloovoo has for the moment adopted this article, you should see marked improvements to it shortly. In order to avoid edit conflicts please consult the page history, if no edits have been made in the last hour Hooloovoo probably forgot about editing due to a beer induced stupor. If you see recent activity while this notice is in place, he would appreciate it if you left a note on his talk page.. This would be a way to tell people to expect rapid-fire changes to the article, and any edits they make to it that get overwritten by a Beeropedian shouldn't be taken as an edit war... I do like the Beer/Brewery of the week idea a lot as well, this would also drive rapid improvement... and we can always between us state our preference for a specific page, which is what I intended adoption to mean; a way to focus edits and avoid conflicts within this project. Like Justin most my edits are small and quick though, so maybe the notice is indeed overkill. --Hooloovoo 13:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We already have the {{inuse}} template to prevent edit conflicts. – Clockwork Soul 13:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most excellent, I forgot about that one. Any suggestions for beers of the week? For my part I'll focus on Heineken, it's in dire need of improvement, imo. --Hooloovoo 13:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heres a suggestion: beer. It was a featured articles, but was delisted about a month ago because it was editing into mediocrity. I would like to get that back to FAS as soon as possible. – Clockwork Soul 13:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of the beer article, "Ingredients" should probably be split up into a much shorter "Ingredients" section and a "Brewing process" section. Just had the thought and needed to jot it down. --Sean κ. ⇔ 15:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beer article cleanup, discussion and notes.

A proper section, just so we know where we're all going with the cleanup on the main article. We want to get it back to Featured Article Status asap. You can leave your thoughts on each individual section here as a todo list of sorts.

I decided to be really radical. I have removed everything that is dups of other articles, spam etc. I know its a bit radical. But feel free to put anything back that you think makes this a better article. I havent actually deleted anything that is somewhere else as far as I know. Justinc 16:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Good call. I just came back from dinner and was about to do exactly this :D We can leave this section for a few days and then archive it on a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer/Archive page? In a bit I'll bring Brewing industry upto speed, putting up current information and using Wiki markup for the table, etc. --Hooloovoo 16:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Overview/Intro

It's coming to me... yes! I'm imagining a picture of about five different types of beer, all in the glasses they're typically served in, sitting on a bar. And the caption: "There are many styles of beer, (from left) Hefeweizen, Stout, ...". Anyone have such a picture? The current picture is a bit dull. --Sean κ. ⇔ 17:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, don't have a picture like that... wish I had, sounds like a brilliant idea :) Would it have to be 1 picture of all those glasses lined up, or can it be a Photoshopped composite? Because the latter is something I can probably deliver within a day. A raytraced version is possible as well, with more time. Hooloovoo 18:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about this one? [A Looooot of Steins Hooloovoo 19:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some more from the same source WP's PD images resource page says these are (you guessed it) PD.

Ingredients

It has been suggested that the ingredients section is cleaned up, perhaps splitting off the process into its own article, I second this --Hooloovoo 17:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done, and trimmed. Feel free to put stuff back. --Sean κ. ⇔ 18:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The brewing process

Just added. --Sean κ. ⇔ 18:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Styles of beer

I have a large beer tome that I can reference, I think I can clean this section up even further. – Clockwork Soul 03:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Infobox for a style of beer

Bitter
Bitter in glass
Country of Origin	England
Original Gravity	1040-1050
Final Gravity	1015-1028
Bitterness IBU	30-50
Color (SRM)	8 (Pale Brown)
Attenuation	60-70
Yeast type	Ale
Malt percentage	90-100
ABV	3.5 - 4.5%
Serving Temperature	50-60°F
BJCP style #	8B
This article forms part of a series on beers and breweries of the world.

Just messing around with brewboxes, I'm working on standardizing the beer styles articles, and though something like this might help. The numbers are not accurate for Bitter, but should give an idea of what it can look like. Allegrorondo

More messing around, I added 'serving temperature', as this is something that can vary widely by beer style, and can really affect flavor.Allegrorondo

Related drinks, ordered by region

I've added the ordered by region suffix and cleaned up the list today. --Hooloovoo 17:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brewing industry

This needs a cleanup, perhaps ordering by production or sales? --Hooloovoo 17:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this section is completely useless. Delete it or link to Category:Brewers and breweries. Justinc 18:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That would nicely clean up that section, indeed. :) Hooloovoo 18:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I second that, but I say that we could just delete... – Clockwork Soul 00:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Commercial brands of beer

I'll be consolidating this with the Brewery Industry section (after I'm done watching Star Trek). The Brewing industry article itself is in need of updating as well, I'll take that on after this refactoring. I believe it's best to just have a few sparse links to larger pages such as Beer and nationality, and the updated Industry article. Ideas? Hooloovoo 18:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I got occupied writing a Wikinews article after watching Star Trek ;) So... since n:KLM flight to Mexico sent back by U.S. Homeland Security, inquiry follows is now ready and published, I'll take on the overhaul of the Beer article with the improvements listed by us thusfar (which involves a lot of deleting, lol). --Hooloovoo 14:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External links

Weed out spam and order, maybe even creating sublevels. --Hooloovoo 17:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

its pretty much all spam. delete the lot. There is no reason to have external links here, they can be relevant in particular articles. Justinc 18:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Its spamminess may have been one of the key reason this article lost the FAS tag as it is. I agree we can delete it. For one, if someone wants to know how to say Cheers in 50 languages, it oughta be on the article Cheers. Hooloovoo 18:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who owns a beer?

I've run into a problem when categorizing beers... I guess I should just say the example. Henry Weinhard's is a beer that's been around in the Northwest (US) for 150 years. As with most beers, the company and brewery were eventually bought, three times in fact. The last company that owned the brewery decided to sell it and the brand to Miller, who shut down the brewery. Today, Miller owns the brand of five beers brewed under the Weinhard name. However, it only actually brews two of the beers, and contracts the other three out to Full Sail, a small brewery in Oregon. So I guess the question is, whose beer is it? If you go to SABMiller's website, they claim it's their beer, and the Full Sail website doesn't list it. Yet it seems like it should be on the Full Sail page.

This issue seems to be popping up a lot: some corporation owns the brand, but another local brewery makes the beer. Whose page should get the mention? Both?

On a related note, I've been abusing the brewbox a bit. For example, on InBev, I've listed Beck's and Labatt as subsidiaries where the beer names should go. Comments? --Sean κ. ⇔ 03:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Curious question... and this is a very common practice as corporations go. I figure that the listed owner should be the topmost corporation (i.e., where the money goes). As for the subsidiaries, I could always create a "subsidiary" element for that purpose. – ClockworkSoul 04:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Selling beverages under license happens a lot, especially with softdrinks. Coca-Cola is an example. Heineken's subsidiary Vrumona sells Sprite, for instance. So my suggestion is to link to Beck's and Labatt's as you do, noting it's a subsidiary, and on their pages to note the brands are brewed under license from InBev? --Hooloovoo 08:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that this is probably the best way to go. – Clockwork Soul 14:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Units

When we talk about volume for breweries, can we use millions or thousands of hectolitres, instead of gallons or barrels? This seems to be the most common unit among them. For US breweries, I've been doing things like, "Output: 200,000 US barrels (0.33 million hectolitres)".

Please do use hectolitres, indeed. It's an SI derived unit, for one, and secondly gallons make me want to start up Josh Madison's Convert... which in and on itself is an excellent little program, but a waste of time to need to use when reading an encyclopaedia :P Hooloovoo 19:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Barrels is a very common unit, and is traditionally used over hectoliters. However, as a scientist, I like SI units. Perhaps using both would not be entirely inappropriate? – Clockwork Soul 19:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Danish

Can any Danish speakers figure out if Hancock brewery is large enough to be notable? --Sean κ. ⇔ 22:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll ask a few of my Danish colleague coders next I speak to them on Skype or MSN, which should be within the next few days. (I know just a couple of Danish words, including that for beer: Öl. Apart from that it's mostly limited to curses ;)) Hooloovoo 23:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Subcat

Should we have a separate subcategory for defunct breweries like Hendon Brewery?

No, I don't think so... I think it's better to keep all breweries, dead or alive, in a single category. – Clockwork Soul 03:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article improvement drive

Some wise person went and submitted beer for the article improvement drive. If you get a chance, drop by and voice your support for it! – Clockwork Soul 03:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Miller Brewing

For some reason this has the most comprehensive set of articles on its brands eg Miller Lite. None of them say very much - inclined to merge them into main article really and turn into redirects. ANy objections? Justinc 14:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. --Sean κ. ⇔ 14:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have done all except Miller Lite so far. Also similar work on other breweries (eg Fuller's). It makes the main articles much better.Justinc 18:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree; I'm personally of the opinion that those two beers are rather notable, and should have their own articles. If the brand Budweiser has an article, so should Miller Genuine Draft. But I grant you that the brand articles should have more information on them. How about this; I'll start writing an article on my userspace on each Miller brand, and then recreate the articles on each brand once I have enough to justify the brands having their own page. I'll also work on expanding the Miller Brewing article. I live 10 miles away from it, so it shouldn't be too hard. --BaronLarf 18:34, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I left Miller Lite as it was the only one that had any external links to it. Miller Genuine Draft is marginal in my view but certainly has been around for a while; certainly the others were completely unimportant. I think it makes a better Miller Brewing article to have the information about the beers in it (would be good if you could write a few sentences for each of the others). But if you write proper articles I am fine with it too, I am not trying to get rid of all individual beer articles at all, just ones which look like they will remain stubs forever. Breweries make new beers all the time, and most arent notable. At least Budweiser has a whole page article. Go on, write some good stuff... Justinc 18:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh and could you write something on Miller Beer, which is mentioned as ill-fated and in the list of commercial failures, it should get a mention in the article. Justinc 19:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The thing with most beers, as we've noted already, is that they're generally equated directly with the brewery. I would say that no beer deserves its own page, unless there's something really interesting to say about it. Budweiser is an exception, I feel, because its brewer has a much different presence. We have a chain of Busch Gardens, and Busch stadium, but the the only mention of Busch in the Budweiser commercials is the tag line "Anheuser-Busch St. Louis Missouri". I don't even think their logo is on the bottle. --Sean κ. ⇔ 19:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Partly the Budweiser thing is that it was bought by Busch, not set up by them, and it is in fact the name of a (long dead) brewery (like eg McEwan's Brewery), which is why it has its own identity. This is very common in the beer world, where the names of brewers and breweries live on, in an attempt to give some historical continuity. Justinc 19:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beer and nationality

This article is much too long, and contains lots of great stuff, so I am spinning things out into seperate articles. Mostly they are new, but a few involve merges. Just done Mexican beer.Justinc 11:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added proper article on Czech beer. The Czech stuff is pretty weak for such an important place, anyone fancy writing up more? Justinc 11:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of breweries

This article is completely uncomprehensive. The only useful info on it is the list of Belgian breweries which I have stuck into the talk page on Belgian beer for reference. There are now useful categories under Category:Brewers and breweries which I am gradually sorting by country. Lists are useful for keeping redlinks sometimes, but there are hardly any here. I am inclined to put it into VfD. Justinc 14:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could we try to improve it to be a list of breweries with an output that matches our criteria? That way we would have a list to refer to for the breweries that still need to be added to Wikipedia. --BaronLarf 15:24, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

The problem I see with this is that there are huge numbers of breweries and comprehensive sources (and criteria for inclusion) are probably pretty country dependent. Things like quoted companies are being done in various countries which will pick up breweries gradually if they are public companies. But most sources are likely to be country dependent and may as well go in as seperate lists like a hypothetical List of CAMRA member breweries or something. Justinc 16:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One list exists already, which I moved to American breweries (moved to be more consistent), the 50 largest in the US. Justinc 16:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The other thing is that it has much less information than List of commercial brands of beer which is basically a list of breweries with names of the beers they brew attached as well. Its just that the lists are completely different. I am inclined to remove all the beers in the List of commercial brands of beer from there once they are mentioned in an article, as it just duplicates information. It is also extremely long, and potentially infinite. We cant have bad articles such as these. Justinc 23:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about replacing both these articles with List of breweries without articles on Wikipedia or similar, and allowing things like lists of beers they produce or the website of the brewery to be there (so they can be turned into stubs), but deleting all the information that is duplicated by existing articles? Justinc 12:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand the desire to wipe the slate clean on the international list, since it's by no means comprehensive. I believe it is generally accepted that there are two types of useful lists: a list that can definitively be said to be complete (List of popes), or a list made complete through the use of some notability requirements. I believe that the American breweries list that Sean made is the latter, and is one which we should use as a model if we wanted to tackle an internation list again. So keep the American one, but I don't object to getting rid of the international one for the time being.

If we made a list of breweries that aren't on Wikipedia, I think it should go in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer namespace, since it wouldn't be of any use to non-developers. --BaronLarf 14:16, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Personal I prefer the format of the List of commercial brands of beer article. --Pypex 01:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A warning if you're going to try for a comprehensive list of breweries and beers: there's a lot of them. My 2004 Good Beer Guide has 230 close-typed pages of UK breweries, with a short paragraph on each and two sentences or so on each of their notable beers. This list is not comprehensive, either, as it misses several beers that I know, so the true number is even higher. According to an article at the beginning of the book there are 2,500 "cask ale brands" (although I'm not sure what constitutes a "brand").

Interestingly Camra's "What’s an independent brewer?" they estimate that there are a meager 350 micro breweries if you include brew pubs. Bit of a discrepancy if you ask me --Pypex 03:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Shame I'm busy at the moment

...exams and all that. But I really ought to get involved in this, being a stalwart member of the Warwick University Real Ale Society and general real ale fanatic. Can't have your pasteurised (dead) fizzed-up beers dominating everything :-) . --Pete

Hey guys and gals! I've been VERY busy lately, you don't know how much I want to be involved in this beer project, but work and school suck, but I'm planning on doing some "whip-cracking" on myself next month to start documenting as many beers from Canada as possible. Right now I'm basically just tasting a wide range of beers, Canadian and international, from Unibroue's La Fin to some cherry beer from Belgium, just send me a talk message if you want, I'll be around, I'm just lazy right now. -Glamour Boy 28 May 2005

New member

Good grief, can't believe I only just stumbled upon this project. Mmmmm. What's cooking at the moment? · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Man, y'all have done a lot of work already. A few of my favorite breweries aren't up yet though. I just created a stub for Brewery Ommegang. If anybody's still active, can you take a look and make sure I've got the format down? Thanks · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, glad to have you on board! Lots of things cooking, as I gather you've found out by now, but feel free to help out however you want. I guess we've sort of all chipped in a bit everywhere, as well as concentrated our efforts on beers/breweries related to our favorite locales. Cheers! --Daniel11 23:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another new member - Allegrorondo. Ive been making minor changes to the beer styles articles, and added stubs for some of my local breweries: Schlafly and Boulevard. I've been homebrewing for close to 10 years, I'd like to get some standardization for the beers styles articles, like including boxes for standard alcohol contents, colors, and gravities.

Welcome aboard! I think standardizing the beer styles is an excellent idea, and I can't wait to see what you come up with (and help out if there's anything I can manage). It's great to see so many homebrewers here. --Daniel11 16:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks, I'm Svartalf, I like beer, and I've already contributed what I could add that wasn't already there... which is admittedly very little, and unlikely to grow unless I take the improbable step of launching into major research on beery matters, and I've a lot of catching up to do on other subjects. So, is it fair that I should add myself to the member list? --Svartalf 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Svartalf, yes, definitely! We don't judge by how much of an expert you are or how many articles you've edited, just by how much you can drink ;) --Daniel11 04:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

(No, we don't actually judge you by how much you can drink -- there's some kind of legal issue with that... But seriously, don't worry about being a guru on everything, I'm sure you can still find areas where you have a lot of useful knowledge to contribute, plus articles always need editing and linking and stuff like that. I personally know far less about beer than a lot of beeropedians (most?), but I still find a ton of places where I can make improvements. --Daniel11 04:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Manitoba breweries

Hey beer drinkers! I've created new articles for Agassiz Brewing and Fort Garry Brewing Company. Please expand them if you can. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-07-1 19:17 Z

Naming and notability

I've just added Goose Island (brewery). I found a link to it from Goose Island, the disambig page. Not sure if that's really the best title. I'm a bit of a newbie so I'm not sure about trying to rename, figured I'd ask about it first. Also, wondered if there were any new thoughts about notability. I read what has been previously discussed here on the subject.. I'd be inclined to say that any commercial brewery is encylopedia-worthy, but maybe I'm just saying that because I like beer. I could see having a size requirement, if needed. Does anyone know if any brewery articles have been VfD'd and what the results were? That might help us decide what should be considered notable. Friday 21:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I like Goose Island's winter seasonals! That one, at least, is notable enough to warrant an entry. Otherwise, I'm not sure. No idea if breweries have survived a VfD test or not. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have moved it to Goose Island Brewery as that is the full name and more consistent, also added category, fixed typo. To demonstrate notability it is best to add more detail, prefeably find enough so it is no longer a stub. Pictures are good too... Justinc 11:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Brewbox questions

The current brewbox lists "active beers". I'd like to suggest changing this to "notable beers", since "active beers" may be interpreted to preclude a brewery's seasonals (and I know some breweries that are almost entirely seasonal, i.e. they don't have a year-round brew).
Similarly, for a 'lot of the breweries, the current lists include a lot of one-time and retired brews. We should work on cleaning this up.
Beer styles: Do we have a consise list of "approved" styles to use for the Brewbox? If not, I'd like to suggest adopting a list such as the one used by [[1]]. (On that topic, I kinda know one of the guys running beeradvocate.com, I'll see if I can get some decent access to their database so I can perhaps post-process it to make stub pages for a bunch of breweries. Hmmm....)

Thoughts? -- Kaszeta 13:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This may create more work than it's worth, but what about changing the template so it's possible to list "active beers" and "seasonals?" That way you're covering both bases while being strictly accurate. But, it'd require some research and janitorial work. I'd be fine with mirroring what BA lists as the "style" for any certain beer; sometimes breweries get a little crazy. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I was going to write a comment about this. I think there should be three sections:

Brands
Beers
Subsidiaries

The "Brands" section would give us the opportunity to include the recognizable logos of popular brands, even those brands should not get their own pages. For example, AmBev owns the brand Brahma], which is a popular, recognizable brand in South American. I don't think it should get its own page; rather, it should be merged into AmBev, since AmBev controls 100% of the brand. Also, we could finally move Sam Adams (beer) to Boston Brewing Company.

When a company doesn't completely control the brand, it should go under subsidiaries. This is an effort to sort out the complicated relationships these companies have. For example, InBev owns Labatt, which owns Latrobe, which produces Rolling Rock. I think there should be some way to get from InBev to Rolling Rock, since on InBev's site they claim to own it: [2]. Also if you actually look at the Latrobe Brewing Company article, and the Rolling Rock article, you'll probably agree that they should be merged, since Latrobe only makes one beer. —Sean κ. + 18:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Beerbox et al being developed?

I came across Template:BeerBox and its friends just now. I see there's a comment up top saying they are being developed, but they haven't been touched since 18 Sep 2004 and there's no discussion here. Are they under development someplace else, or shall I take them all to TfD? -Splash 21:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Microbrews

I don't know what you all think but I'm going to throw in a couple of questions/ideas. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm really just diving in and don't want to step on any toes. Most of my concerns are in the categories that list American Beers and breweries, I really want to extend it. I'm in Colorado, which I last checked produced more beer than any other state, but there is little in the way of brewery articles, and I want to add a few, but don't know where or which ones.

Like I said earlier, Colorado produces tons of beer, mostly by the Coors Brewery and the Budwieser Brewery south of Ft. Collins. But this is only the tip of the iceberg in the VAST amounts of Microbrews that exist in the state and are extremely popular, but here again, in the state. The most notable is New Belgium Brewery, which if you lived east of the Mississippi, you've probably never heard of, but it's a cult classic here are the only Colorado beer other than Coors to have an article (or at least I've found).

Maybe we should also list microbrews by state in the American Beers Catagory? I'm sure that my state is not the only one with breweries like Tommyknocker (Idaho Springs), or Avery (Boulder) that makes award winning beers that my have not been seen outside the states boundaries.

This brings me to a second point, what about an article on the Great American Beer Festival? I know it may be no Ocktoberfest, but it has been hailed as a great festival by the Beer Hunter Himself, Michael Jackson. It's held in Denver, Colo. every year holding one of the largest competitions between microbreweries every year.

Give a guy some opinions Through The Lens

Your ideas sound good to me. And, quite a lot of Colorada beer makes it into my neck of the woods, so it's not just of local interest. I don't know that there's much consensus about what makes a brewery encyclopedia-worthy, but I doubt you'll run into much opposition if you make new articles for the ones you feel are important. Friday 06:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Everyone here supports you just fine, we just require that any breweries you add meet a minimum beer production, along with being notable. I think we set the bar at 25,000 barrels/yr, though you'll have to double-check this talk page. I went on a quest to add all notable Oregon Breweries, and I think we did pretty well. I am against a "Colorado Breweries" category, though; I don't like the fact that there's a Maine subcat of American breweries. I prefer keeping a list, as in List of Oregon breweries, and putting that into American breweries. —Sean κ. + 07:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

See, there's a problem there, the two requirements you stated can contradict each other. For example, the 25,000 barrels/year requirement, that is WAY too high. Number 49 on the Wikipedia list of 50 largest breweries in US, (American breweries) only produces 35k barrels, which is hardly over the line. Again, of the top 50, only 4 of the estimated 100 breweries (It's the closest estimate that I could find) in Colorado make this list, I'm not claiming that all these 100 are encyclopedia worthy, but many are that wouldn't make this barrell cut.

There is a brewery in Denver that produces less that 4,000 barrels (according to beerme.com) that places well every year in the Great American Beer Festival, and also invented Blue Moon Beer, which is mass distributed by Coors both in Golden, CO, and in their Memphis, TN breweries. I'm getting off the point, couldn't we call those requirements either/or? If a brewery pumps out 25k barrells, it's pretty darn successful, that is a lot of beer, But there are way more notable beers around the country that could ever meet that barrel line. Couldn't we write articles on breweries that are considered notable in the beer world, even dinky ones? I think that we might just require that the writer be able to make a solid case for notability of the brewer,

Would anyone else agree? Through The Lens 23:37 MST 23 July 2005

I totally agree with you. I don't think there's anything magic about whatever "minimum requirements" were discussed, and certainly there's nothing rigid about criteria for significance anyway. If you want to write up a brewery that's significant, I don't think anything should stop you. Obviously not everything is significant, and I wouldn't put up an article about a homebrewer who gives out cases of beer to his friends, but I don't think that's what you're proposing anyway. Go ahead (as the Wikipedia people say, Be bold), and if for some reason you add one thing that a lot of people consider un-noteworthy, we can discuss it or argue over its inclusion then.

Please keep us updated if you have a chance, on what breweries/beers you add, as I'd certainly be interested in seeing what smaller places you come up with, and I'm sure a lot of us would be happy to help out with the articles any way we can. --Daniel11 17:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh... Also, you make a good point on the numbers, with even some of the major brewers barely fitting over the "minimum." Not to take anything away from those who discussed fixed requirements (I haven't read the discussion on that yet, and maybe they were only suggesting guidelines, or something else extremely useful), but certainly any guidelines we do use should reflect the actual layout of the industry, and I think that should leave room not just for all the major brewers, but also that there will be, as you say, a number of truly noteworthy micros. --Daniel11 17:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

25,000 barrels a year is not a very high bar. I don't think we should necessarily delete articles about breweries that don't produce enough, but every category of articles in Wikipedia needs to have a standard of "notability". We decided a brewery with 25k production is automatically notable, but I'm sure you can make an argument for breweries that produce less. It looks like I phrased my response to you incorrectly—I probably should have said "we just require that any breweries you add meet a minimum beer production, or be notable". —Sean κ. + 00:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Types => Styles

A while ago we discussed whether to refer to the different kinds of beer as types (as was originally done on Wikipedia) or styles (the more proper term). We seem to have come to a consensus on using "styles." I just wanted to put this up here to remind us (myself included) that we should get around to renaming a few things, like Category:Types of beer, to suit the name change, and make appropriate adjustments to the links in other articles. I'm just trying to think of things that we started off on the right path, but haven't really dug into in a cohesive fashion yet. I'm definitely really impressed by how much we've already improved the beer-related articles on Wikipedia, and how popular this project has become, and I guess I also wanted to use this comment as an excuse to thank all of you for the major improvements you've made. (I know, not that you've done it in any way for my benefit, but I do benefit anyway, so I think it's appropriate to say thank you). Um, not to get too teary-eyed about it ... so let's get the other stuff up to snuff too! :)

If you come up with any other ideas we threw around before and haven't really gotten around to fully implementing, please feel free to put them here (or below). Again, thanks! --Daniel11 04:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I've started putting up the style boxes, starting with Scottish ale and Imperial stout. Feel free to make comments or edits as needed. Allegrorondo 13:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Added today - Oud bruin, and infoboxes for red ale and white beer Allegrorondo 14:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

New today -mild ale. Allegrorondo 15:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I may have some contributions

I recently made my very first article which happens to be about Cisk Lager. Now that I've found your WikiProject, I'd be glad to contribute in some way... I'm just not sure how. Should I become a member? Should I include your "Beer talk" info on the discussion page? I'm new to the actual Wiki Community... so I have no idea how these WikiProjects work. So erm... help!

RoderickH 13:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Awesome article -- you definitely do have something to contribute to this WikiProject! The first step is indeed to add your name to the member list (don't worry, that doesn't commit you to anything). Then, feel free to explore what we've done so far, or just to make your own beer pages on what interests you, or do whatever you want. You might also want to post at this page, which is where we have discussions about how to go about our beeropedia-ing and everything else related to the project. About the "Beer talk" info, you don't have to but it's generally a good idea to include that on the discussion page -- you just add {{Beer}} at the top. Also, you might want to try out the infoboxes; feel free to ask if you need any help figuring out how to use them. Hope that answers some of your questions, and I look forward to seeing more of your contributions. --Daniel11 17:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

- Thanks. I guess I'm a new member then! Also {{Beer}} has been added to the discussion page for Cisk. Next stop, Simond Farsons. By the time I'm done... malta won't be missing from this page. RoderickH 19:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see new people joining in. Your first beer page looks great! Daniel11 - correct me if I'm wrong - but I believe the "list of commercial brands of beer" is being move away from, and instead we are listing breweries, with their major products as part of the brewery's article. I dont know if this issue was fully resolved earlier (I'm kind of new here as well). Allegrorondo 16:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Seasonal Beers subsection in brewbox

Hello all- I have prototyped a new way of presenting seasonal brews. It is currently in use in the stubs I created for Anderson Valley Brewing Company and Stone Brewing Company. In the examples section, I've added a comparison of how seasonal brews are currently presented, versus how they look with the new Template:brewbox_seasonal_beers: Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Examples/Example2. Mike Dillon 06:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, I'm wondering if a similar section should be put in for retired/discontinued beers and the like? Judzillah 12:21, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

Thanks. After writing the example page, where I mentioned that a "Limited-Release Beers" section might be useful, I started to think that a header template with a parameter for the type would be desirable. If only the software supported default parameter values, we could change {{brewbox_beers}} to have this parameter while retaining type=Active as the default to match current behavior. That would cover all the possible variants, but it would also make it harder to achieve consistency of presentation. Mike Dillon 14:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The {{Brewbox seasonal beers}} template has been obsoleted. The 1.6 release of MediaWiki added parameter value defaults, so I changed {{Brewbox beers}} to make the word "Active" a variable. It still defaults to "Active", so no existing pages were affected, but it allows editors to do things like "Seasonal Beers" or "Limited-Release Beers" or whatever makes sense for the brewery, but without a proliferation of ad-hoc templates. Mike Dillon 16:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

New page waiting for some attention

Hi everyone. I have just found this project and was amazed to find that my favourite (non-european) brewery is not listed! I have therefore added Namibia Breweries Limited, but keep in mind that this is my first Wikipedia page ever. Please take a look and help where you can! Nicooosthuizen 13:31:39, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

excellent article, keep up the good work. Justinc 10:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Beer-project-member

For those of you who haven't already, you can add {{Beer-project-member}} to your user page, identifying you as a member of WP:WPB.

For those of you who already have, you can see where else the template shows up by looking here. --Daniel11 16:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

An article on OG and FG would be useful Jooler 09:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge/move Real ale

I think Real ale brewing process should be merged into Real ale. It seems unnecessary to have it split into two articles. Are there any objections to this?

I also would like to propose moving Real ale to Cask conditioning.

The reasons for this are threefold:

1. Real ale is CAMRA's term, but the proper term is cask-conditioned ale.

2. The article currently focuses on cask, and not bottle conditioning.

3. As the article states, "this fermentation process is by no means unique to ale", i.e. lagers can also be cask conditioned.

Please comment on Talk:Real ale.

--Dforest 07:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed the term "real ale" was invented by CAMRA, but it is now in common usage. I have no opinion on a proposed move from this title to something proper, but if it is to be cask-conditioned ale that would be wrong and just as bad as the term 'real ale'. Nobody brews ale anymore. Ale is brewed without hops or other preservatives. One should also note that beers can also be bottle-conditioned. Jooler 18:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. The article should definitely be left under the heading Real Ale, it is the common term by which those who will be likely to look for the page will want to find it, since it is the term that has permeated through the industry and society at large. The drink is referred to as such by retailers (both in supermarkets and pubs), brewers and even in, for instance, journalism. By all means have other sub threads linking to the Real Ale page and have other titles for the brew redirecting here but I fail to see how it makes any sense to change the heading. As for the pedantry of claiming that it isn't truly ale as it isn't hopped; "by the end of the [17th] century the distinction between ale and beer was becoming blurred. From James Lightbody's Every Man his Own Gauger, 1695, it appears that ale too was hopped at this period, though more lightly than beer." (Beer and Skittles, Richard Boston, 1976). Holypeanut 01:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Types --> Styles

I've just begun making some changes that we discussed a while ago, moving references to "types of beer" to the more correct "styles." First of all, there's a new Beer style article, for now with content mostly taken from the appropriate sections of the main beer article. Also, and this is a bigger part of the shift, I've begun moving articles from Category:Types of beer to Category:Beer styles. Please feel free to help out! --Daniel11 23:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that "styles of beer" may be more appropriate for some types of beer than the words "type of beer". However, the Japanese word "Happoshu" describes a type of beer with low malt content, which is subject to lower taxation. Thus, it is not a "style" of beer, and moving it to "style of beer" or "beer style" is not a very good idea. I notice User:Dforest seems to be a member of this WikiProject, and he knows probably more than I do about the topic of Japanese beer, but I hope he'll have the same opinion about this. I'm sorry to upset your plans, but "happoshu" should not be categorized as a "beer style". --DannyWilde 03:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Woah, settle down, cowboy. I just moved happoshu because it starts with H, and I happened to do the H's first. You can move it back, I figured it was another normal style, and if the Japanese do things differently that's perfectly fine by me! --Daniel11 03:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. For what it's worth, it appears to me that it would indeed fit into the broad category of styles of beer at least to the extent that near beer does, to take just one of many examples. Also, for convenience at the very least, it seems to me that it would be easier to find something like happoshu if it's included in category:beer styles than if it's off in its own little category with beers from whatever other cultures people want to feel are different. --Daniel11 04:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What occurs to me is that "types of beer" is a much more neutral and meaningful name for a category than "styles of beer". --DannyWilde 04:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what a number of other people here have to say, because I know there are plenty of people here who know far more than I do about beer. My impression is that "types of beer" is wrong and therefore silly-sounding, like asking "did the Dallas Cowboys score a lot of goals?" But, as I say I'm no expert, and I'd like to hear what the more knowledgeable beeropedians say, which I'll gladly go along with. --Daniel11 04:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't count myself as more knowledgeable than you or anyone else, hence I will leave this discussion at this point, having registered my complaint about "beer styles". --DannyWilde 04:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

As I see it there are nested categories... Styles such as Dark Beer, Light Beer, Ale, Stout, Porter etc... Types such as a "Christmas Ale" or a "Summer Ale" (within a particular style) and within those types you'd have individual brands. So perhaps we should work on a nested tree type structure?

For example Guiness is a Brand... the "Beer" is a Stout style... but depending on country there are different TYPES of Guiness Stout based on legal requirements causing different formulas. ALKIVAR™

05:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"Style" of beer is, at least in English, a more accurate descriptor of the various regional beers than "Type". "Style" has nothing to do with taxation or legal designation, and everything to do with taste profile, mouthfeel, body, head retention, and similar factors, as well as the brewing recipe. If "Happoshu" is a term that can be used to describe a collection of beers with similar flavor characteristics, etc (e.g. all "Happoshu" beer tastes roughly the same, in the same way that all beers of the American lager style taste roughly the same, and they're all brewed with roughly the same ingredients, in the same way that all beers in the American lager style are brewed with roughly the same ingredients), then it's a style.

If, on the other hand, "Happoshu" is something that crosses many flavor profiles (e.g. there is a "Happoshu" version of Guiness stout and a "Happoshu" version of Budweiser, and those versions are sold in the same location as regular Guiness and regular Bud), then it would more properly be considered a variety (since the taste, mouthfeel, etc of Happoshu Guiness would presumably be dramatically different than that of Happoshu Bud). → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 03:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Beer style classifications are not cut-and-dried, and often subjective. Strictly speaking, happoshu is a tax category, not a descriptor of flavor profile, though in practice most brews sold as happoshu are pale lagers that resemble the Japanese dry beer style, albeit with more adjuncts such as rice and corn. Compare to American malt liquor, which is a legal term for high-alcohol brews, but is also considered a style by the Brewer's Association style guidelines compiled by Charlie Papazian. [3] Like malt liquor, Happoshu is sometimes considered a beer style, at Beer Advocate [4], for example. Many beer enthusiasts use the term adjunct lager to refer to these brews. As Alkivar suggests, beer styles are hierarchical. If we consider happoshu a style, it could be considered a variant of Japanese dry lager, or more generally as a type of adjunct lager. But it would be a much more general "style" than say, South German Hefeweizen. Dforest 11:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to get at myself, but was struggling to find the proper words. I was thinking of Oklahoma Three Percent beer, which I wouldn't consider a "style," since you could (in theory) have Oklahoma Three Percent for any brand of beer that cared to make that variation. However, in practice, Oklahoma Three Percent is predominantly (if not exclusively) in the American lager style. Happoshu sounds like Oklahoma Three Percent in that regard. In any case, thanks for the clarification and edification. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

So, er, any chance of a consensus? One way or another, add your comments and hopefully there will be a clear preference, but it's probably best if we don't leave it in this half-and-half state for too long. --Daniel11 22:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As there has not been discussion for a while, I am moving articles that are unquestionably styles to that category and ignoring the others for now. Couchand 04:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

->Also, several but not many of the style articles are also in an ethnic food category (e.g. British cuisine), and it seems we should standardize this. I suggest taking them out. Couchand 04:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for starting on that, I think that's the right approach -- moving articles that are unquestionably styles. We can debate the questionable ones, but there seems to be no objection to the majority of them, so they should move. I also agree on removing the cuisine cat.'s, the beer stuff is already underneath that category anyway, so they definitely should not be in the ethnic cuisine sections. --Daniel11 15:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the remaining types to styles. The only questionably one is Draught beer because it is rather a way of serving than a style of brewing. wasbeer84 16:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Beer Mug.png redirect, link from Template:Beer

I added a redirect so that clicking on the beer mug image will bring the person to the beer project page. The redirect does mean one has to do a couple steps to edit the image file, but I like getting to the project page easier. Let me know if the redirect should be removed. Cafe Nervosa | talk 22:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There is also existing discussion at Image talk:Beer Mug.png, including my opinions of why it should be changed back. Mike Dillon 22:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, but I agree with Mike Dillon that it's not really practical, and would probably be better off without the redirect. For getting to the project page easily, have you thought of using your watchlist or adding a link on your user page? Also, tlhere's a shortcut, WP:WPB, which also works in all lower case, wp:wpb. --Daniel11 01:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm, well, the lower-case link doesn't work, but if you type it in directly it works. --Daniel11 21:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect removed. Cafe Nervosa | talk 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As of 2005

My question is, Is the WikiProject Beer going to stay up to date going forward (and backward ) with the introduction and discontinuation of all brands of beer? Also, as breweries change ownership, keeping up to date will b edifficult. I don't think it can be done completely, however, adding the the year of introduction (and year of discontinuation) may be a little informative, particularily for the old brands, like Labatt Velvet Cream Stout.

Well, I obviously don't speak for everyone, but is there anything impossible with staying up to date? I suppose it's a somewhat daunting effort, but I think it can be done. I'll wait to hear what other people think. (By the way, I definitely agree that adding the year of discontinuation for old beers is a good idea). --Daniel11 01:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

New Contributions

I'm new to this project and so I just wondered whether you could give me any advice on these pages: Crouch Vale Brewery, Nethergate brewery, Young's Brewery, Greene King and Ridley's brewery. I started the first two from scratch and altered the other three from various degrees (Greene King from a stub) and was wondering what you thought and how they fitted into your project. Holypeanut 01:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice pages. We tend to use the 2nd-level titles (with two equals signs around them) as the top level header. Also, your lists tend to get put onto one line by the wikipedia software -- try putting an asterisk at the beginning of each line to get a bulleted list. Help:Editing has the full list, but you seem to have got most of them already. Ojw 23:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheers for the input, it's good to know I'm going about things largely the right way. Thanks very much. I'll try and keep it up Holypeanut 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Alfa

I just started the article for the Dutch brewery Alfa. It needs a bit of help, specifically catigorising the beers and an image. I checked Dutch Wikipedia and they don't have one either. Any suggestions? Movementarian 20:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. I've tweaked things a little bit, but I can't help with your actual problems. All I did was change your link to the Dutch Wikipedia article to an interwiki link, suppressed the use of {{brewbox_image}} and {{brewbox_production}} (until they have an image and a production figure), and added Category:Breweries of the Netherlands. I also interwiki'd the Dutch article back to your newly contributed article. Mike Dillon 21:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Aussie Beer

Mountain Goat Beer and Piss Beer have been started, but I'm a crappy writer so if somone else could look over them that would be great. Agnte 14:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How to use the brewboxes created

Hi folks. I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/How to use the brewboxes, which was red-linked from a number of places. Feel free to provide feedback or edit it mercilessly. Mike Dillon 19:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Great job! I was going to edit it mercilessly, but it looks like you already did a pretty thorough job! I'll still look around again later, and see if there's anything I have worth adding. Thanks for doing that, I'd been meaning to start on that for a while, but at any rate I would never have done such a swell job of it... --Daniel11 20:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Happy holidays! Mike Dillon 23:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheers, and happy holidays to you too! --Daniel11 01:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

New section on project page

I've added a new section to the project page, highlighting some articles where Beeropedians may wish to edit (or create the article if there's nothing there yet). Instead of an article of the month, which might lapse into disuse, this is a place where we can put any relevant articles we'd like to see more work done on, to draw the attention of fellow Beeropedians who might like to help out. Also, if you joined the project and aren't sure what to do -- i.e., where you can be of help, what areas are currently active, etc. -- you can look here to gather some ideas. Hope this helps, and as usual feel free to add lots of your own stuff to the section. --Daniel11 06:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Userboxes

Could someone cobble together a Userbox? You can call me Al 21:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I made one for my self, but be aware that my userboxes are NOT userboxes but a table instead and thereby avoiding the current userbox discussion. See it at my userpage. Use at your own risk of deletion Angelbo 21:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and created one. {{User:UBX/beer}} You can call me Al 14:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ha ha, that's awesome! --Daniel11 15:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'll drink to that! —CKA3KA (Skazka) 01:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Separate brewery and beer pages?

I'm slowly making some beer edits and my proposal over on Talk:Kwak probably needs more exposure. There doesn't seem to be much here with enough specific detail.

For the Kwak page, it's currently one page on the particular beer, with no separate page for the brewery. I'm thinking that there should in fact be an article on the brewery itself, with the beer page being a redirect to the brewery page. As it's a fairly small brewery with only two or three beers, the brewery itself only takes a paragraph, and the beers would come up fairly quickly in the article.

Therefore, the question is whether notable beers from small breweries should be described on the brewery page, or whether the beers themselves should occupy their own pages. This already occurs for mostTrappist beers, so perhaps it's a useful guidenline?

I'm pondering all of this as I'd like to eventually see all of the beer related pages done with a similar structure so that we can have some consistency. User:Riflemann

(You can sign your name with ~~~ or by clicking the scripty signature in the toolbox while editing a page, and it will look like this: Daniel11) or this: --Daniel11 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops I normally do! Too much beer (oh i wish, was just tired) :) Riflemann 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is my first time posting so I hope I'm doing it right. I just wanted to contribute if I could. I have this link to a video clip about the history of James Gates Brewing that I thought you all might be interested in.

http://www.evtv1.com/index.asp-itemnum-756

Let me know what you think!

I hope I'm not too late on this, but I'd like to add my two cents in. I guess it would all depend on the beer in question. Many of the ones above, such as the Trappist beers have a lot of infomation for both the beers and the companies on seperate pages. Others, such as microbrewers, have little information about the company and little about the beer as well. I would say that for situations like that the beer should be included in the main brewery article and then spun off later. Radagast83 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I hop to and fro on this one. But on the whole it appears that at this stage it would make more sense to have beers on the brewery page. Names of individual beers redirecting to the brewery. This keeps the information in the most relevant place. And the history and development of an individual beer might be wrapped up in the history and development of the brewery (and vice versa). Also, there have been some people writing about a beer on the brewery page and someone else writing about the beer on a beer page and the information not matching up and being shared. Keep the beer on the brewery page and people share and build together. If information on an individual beer builds significantly there would be no problem at that stage of the beer having its own page linked from the brewery page. From my limited experience of Wiki it seems that the more hits a page has, and the more information on that page, the more likely people are to get involved and work on it. Isolated simple paragraphs on individual beers should be brought in from the cold and be comforted by the warmth of the company of other beers and the parent brewery. Cheers! SilkTork 15:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

British Breweries

I'm new here, but some of you have noticed that I've been tearing into the British Breweries and other beer related articles with great glee and abandon over the past couple of days. There's a lot of work to be done. And I like that! I'm the British Admin on RateBeer. I started the clean up of the mess that was the British Breweries on that website back in 2002. I would love to help clean up here. I am very keen on accuracy, conformity, cleanliness, well written and helpful articles. I will make mistakes. I'm new to the Wiki way. But my heart is in the right place. I don't know who is part of the British Brewery Team. It would be good at this stage to get everyone together who is interested or has some knowledge about British Breweries so we can work out a common approach so that each Brewery page follows the same format. So - who is part of the British Brewery Team?

SilkTork 17:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm always glad to help. I'm a RealBeer.com regular myself (lapsed recently). Just had a lovely Gales Christmas '05 on tap last week! Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Katefan0. It's been a while since I checked in to RealBeer. I just looked and I was told: "Welcome back, SilkTork. You last visited: 03-23-2005 11:44 AM. There have been 3040 threads and 39286 posts in the Community area since your last visit." I think it's great when a website welcomes you back! SilkTork 00:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Brummie beer nut here. --Pypex 17:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi - how's The Wellington?

SilkTork 00:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores ^Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox and self references

Hey, everyone! I just created a new page for les Brasseries du Cameroun, Cameroon's major brewery. I used this project's infobox, and it looks great! However, I do have one suggestion: In keeping with Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, we should probably drop the final line from the infobox ("This article forms part of a series on beers and breweries of the world. (Project)"). — BrianSmithson 15:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: Is is possible to add an optional section to the infobox for other beverages bottled by the brewery? Les Brasseries bottles Coca-Cola and its own soft drink brands, and I'd imagine many breweries in the developing world do the same. Perhaps a section called "Other beverages" or "Other products"? — BrianSmithson 15:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Any objection to the removal of the self-reference from the Brewbox template? — BrianSmithson 20:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed. — BrianSmithson 18:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get around to this before, I've been busy and only saw it now, after you've removed it. Do you know whether that is basically a guidline, or if it's more of a rule? I personally think that the line is quite effective and useful there, and would object to its removal if that's not strictly necessary. Please let me know what you know.... --Daniel11 19:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

I came across this WP too late! :) I've recently gotten Cheers up to FA status, and I am currently pushing for it to be the front page article for Saint Patrick's Day. Any touch-ups from you beer-folk to the article would be great! (as I'm still technically underage I don't think I'll join this project just yet. ;) )Staxringold 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Pub session, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --Izno Repeat (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WPB listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPB. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)