Talk:Homebrewing/Archive 2

Name of the article
I have moved all new content from Home brewing back to here (Homebrewing) until the name issue can be resolved. After further thought, I'm now of the opinion that Homebrewing is indeed the better name. This has long been used throughout wikipedia, and is the choice used by the organizations in Homebrewing (which represent US, UK and Canadian usage). I think it would be helpful to hear several editors give their thoughts on this though. -MrFizyx 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a homebrewer and patronize a homebrew store on occasion, and have always seen it written as "homebrewing".--Caliga10 02:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that does not reflect either my printed OED or my search which deliberately used the contraction to see what happened. Nonetheless, the references on the basis of your search would seem to make some allowance for this colloquial varient.


 * This creates a considerable problem with the consistency of all citations as all the major literature uses the form "Home Brewing" of "Home Brew". On a point of interest, I wandered into a take-away recently and was offered an attractively-priced chicken burgher (sic). I have yet to start cannibalising my fellow citizens in rural Hertfordshire, however. Shop signs and styles are a rule unto themselves.


 * Primarily, I would like to try and write the article in the usages common to the nation of my birth, as I gather I am permitted to do, without correction, by the style guidelines. However, I am also striving for consistency of usage within the article; which will not be possible if I correctly site the titles of the main literature. Finally, contractions are typically colloquial until they have been in the language for many years; winemaking for example made it all the way some time ago. I look forward to retitling the article on homo erectus to hairy ancient dude with relish. I feel that colloquial references from the Wayne's World Dictionary are now such common parlance that my arbitrary decision to distract the author from his main task is wholly justifiable.


 * DavidP02 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe you'll find in both the Manual of Style and in various ArbCom rulings that the Wikipedia preference is leave articles with the title under which they were created, if they are titled with a name that is particular to the US or to the UK. The ArbCom has historically frowned upon people coming in to an article written by an American and changing everything to British spellings and usages, and also vice versa.  At least one editor has been permanently banned from Wikipedia for his inability to leave British spellings alone.  (He made a point of changing every British spelling he found into its equivalent American spelling.)


 * So, since the article was created at "Homebrewing," and since that's the common term in the US (American Homebrewing Association, The Complete Joy of Homebrewing, etc), then clearly it should remain at "Homebrewing".


 * All the best,
 * Ξxtreme Unction
 * 13:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ...which still completely fails to address my citation issue. Oh and by the way...


 * http://www.amazon.com/New-Complete-Joy-Home-Brewing/dp/0380763664 ...to reinforce my point, the book simply is not called anything to do with "homebrewing". Nonetheless we all seem keen to pursue our own argument rather than put together a framework which will help me get this written.


 * I am not, to quote the reaction so far, "vandalising" anything or going 'round correcting American English spellings to English. What I am trying to do is make a sober attempt to re-write an article which whilst it has the interest of so many is; US-centred, often, though unintentionally, inaccurate, fails to make any references, makes wholly biased assertions about the craft and generally annoys the living daylights out of me.


 * So in the word one Ronnie Corbett. 'It's goodbye from me...'


 * I plan to leave the rest of this to you fabled i-dotters and t-crossers. I am used to working with the house style of various publications. I have no desire to waste my time with one that is managed by the self-appointed committee that designed the lemming.


 * We will somehow struggle on in your absence. It will be difficult, certainly, but we will manage.  Ξxtreme Unction  17:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is pretty common for citations to have variation in spelling. This is not considered a problem. I think you are looking for Americentric tendencies where there are none. Obviously the "legal" section here needs information about homebrewing in other countries, but I the difference between "homebrewing" and "home brewing" is so small as to be irrelevant. Even the Craft Brewing Association web page uses "homebrewing", right alongside "home brewing". You may want to consider obtaining a newer copy of the OED (or seeking out the unabridged edition); the entry I'm reading right now lists "home-brewing" and "homebrewing", but actually does not list "home brewing" at all. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 17:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that it is a miniscule point is well made; thank you. Nonetheless, it seems important enough for a series of people who regard themselves as guardians of this encyclopedia have jumped in to edit back this minor issue to the point of changing book titles to make them inaccurate. However, whilst it would appear that there a number of experienced craft brewers here, most sections do take a rather narrow view of a very broad subject. I have already edited out the American only history and tried to stop the General information reflecting only the process of extract beer brewing and the time involved.


 * I regret my loss of temper, as I have been trying to join in the editing debate with a little bit of humour. However, there seems to have been little humour in return, just playing the rules hard to make sure one particular point of view gets across even on the minutest matters. I really don't care whether you agree with my opinions or not wikipedians, but a good editor lets the writer get into the cut and thrust of the article; then he is savage with his pen. I have to say, I am surprised anything gets written here.


 * Nevertheless, despite Extreme's determination to soldier on without me, I'm going to give this one last go. Then, frankly please do with it what you will. Could I please appeal for a couple of days to try and get some sensible revisions down. Then if you don't agree, revert the whole thing for all I care.


 * DavidP02 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing Decisions
First of all, I would like some comment on an editing decision. Links to non-national associations are begining to appear again. Extreme Unction, or do you prefer Unc? seems to have worked to a rule of one recognised national association per country only. My proposal is to stick to this; maybe with the addition of one or two other national and supra-national references.

I am proposing to remove the link to the New York Homebrewers Guild. Comments???

DavidP02 19:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Some editors may keep adding them, but those of us following the discussion can keep removing them. -MrFizyx 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for supporting the edit. I have changed the structure slightly to reflect more precisely the intent of the section. It may even help... DavidP02 19:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I am a bit dubious about the See Also section. Why not support the wikibook up front of the document? The rest of the references are almost certain to come up in the text.


 * Works for me. I usually see wikibook links in the external links section, though. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Tables & Pictures
I'm noticing that the article is becoming one long block of text. I've moved tables to my sandbox for further work, please feel free to take a look and thanks to ptk for the heads up.

I'm currently gathering pictures from various contacts for inclusion, but any suggestions welcome.

DavidP02 22:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've inserted a minimum equipment table. It certainly deserves a good debate! DavidP02 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole brewing thing
Back in the original re-wrtie proposal, I pointed out the need to consider different end beverages as the reader's objective. I'm cool with just doing beer as writing three break-out articles is a major undertaking. I also remember Extreme had a language objection to using homebrewing to cover all the main branches of the craft.

So the options are:-


 * Write the thing with the beer process as an example process; or
 * Cover all processes and write break out article on beer, cider and wine (leaving options for mead and others later).

Any thoughts???


 * At least around here, beer is by far the most popular thing folks brew at home, so I don't think it's a problem if the article focuses mainly on homebrewing of beer. Until we have a lot of info on mead, wine, etc., there's no real reason to break those out into separate articles, as they'll just be stubs. Feeding starch and sugar to yeast to turn it into an alcoholic beverage, at home, is clearly the topic of this article. A paragraph or two on cider, mead, etc. is entirely appropriate here in my view. This is an article that is primarily written for readers who don't brew at home and want to read about it, so excluding things that aren't beer just because of specialist usage of the word would be a mistake. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 22:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'll start with the way you suggest and see how things come out. DavidP02 11:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've begun to break the methods up logically. I felt it particularly imprtant to pay a little more attention to kits as so many people are disappoint with the results they get from kits that need added sugar. DavidP02 12:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind, and I say this only as a general observation rather than a specific critique of the article as it currently stands (point of fact, I have not yet read the article as it currently stands): Articles should not be how-to guides. If the article becomes a step-by-step guide on how to brew beer (or mead or what-have-you) at home, it moves outside the scope of what a Wikipedia article should cover.

All the best, Ξxtreme Unction 02:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a very good point Unc. I've tried to focus mostly on getting all the main terminology in place, but that has included some description of how things are done. Basically, I'm trying to put someone in a situation where, when talking to an experienced home brewer, they would understand all the principles and the jargon he or she might discuss. I would appreciate your thoughts on the work so far. 82.18.18.215 14:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry EU that was me not signed in... DavidP02 22:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Continuing development
Added Liquors, boiling, extract, partial and started separating out the end of the existing process text. Still hunting for some really full on photos and need to put in a bucket of referrences - many of which I do have... DavidP02 23:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Some references and pics and some work on full mashes tonight. Note to self, getting a bit strangled - tighten up prose... DavidP02 00:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture deletion
I added two pictures last night with the full written permission of the copyright owner and somebody has simply deleted them. Can anybody explain why they have been delted, when I have obtained permission for them to be used?
 * I could do with some help on this issue. I really don't want to get into tit for tat reversions when I am labelling the permissions wrongly on the uploads or something. I think I have them right and I'm surprised the pictures have been deleted. I have full written permission to release them to the public domain... I don't want to get hung up on this but would like to reference and add pictures to what I have done so far before moving on to the latter parts of the article DavidP02 22:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Brewing culture
My take on this section is that it covers alot of things that are basically just schools of brewing. Fair comment would include an analysis of whiuch schools dominate in which territories, but real homebrew cultured is more based around brewing circles, rig-heads, the hop-heads already mentioned, brewing competitions, online forums and general pub culture. I've convered most of the technical aspects although the fermentation and packging elements need a bit of a re-wrtie and rebalancing. I'd really aprreciate some thoughts and imput before proceeding with the final sections of the revamp. DavidP02 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement "this having been said the vast majority of beer consumed both sides of the Atlantic is keg beer" is false; for example, Coors Brewing Company, the largest single-site brewery in North America, kegs only 10% of its beer, with 70% going into cans, and the rest is bottled (Source: Coors brewery tour, Golden, CO). Since the amount of commercial keg beer consumed anywhere isn't relevant to homebrewing, and no sources have been cited to show the percentage of homebrewed beer that is kegged, I'm going to remove it unless there's a compelling reason not to do so. Bri2k1 18:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking more of the argumnet between pressure kegged as against cask beer which uses natural maturation to add sparkle to the beer, but your point is well made. I've no objection to your changes although again homebrew culture is based arounf alot more than brewing methods... ;) DavidP02 21:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal aspects
This is a bit tougher. By far the most complex homebrew environment in legal terms is the US. The legal situations in the UK and Aus can be covered in a short paragraph each at most. I feel a state by state table is just too much. there are a number of decent sites which provide this already. Comments again would be helpful. DavidP02 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I just added a short paragraph concerning the legality in Germany, also with reference. The reference is in German (I hope this is okay), but it is the official site of the Ministry of treasury of Germany, Customs concerning homebrewing beer. 132.230.1.28 (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the part about being illegal in Alabama needs a citation. I know for a fact their are homebrew supply shops and clubs in Alabama. I added a fact tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justeco (talk • contribs) 04:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing Mash / Sparge from the culture section
I know this has been reverted. Can all interested editors see how it has been covered as part of the process section and discuss? I guess it is an aspect of brew culture but it's basically a brewing method and I have already covered it. DavidP02 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

long article
This article is getting long. I recommend that the section "The process" be split off to its own article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay I agree - That was the original plan, but on advice from other editors went back to covering beer as a main brewing topic. Can I ssuggest I finish the article which is getting close then we work on a plitout ot=r do you think this is a priority now. I'm happy to go with either. :D DavidP02 23:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Spltting the article is not really a priority. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay so how do we create a Category: called Homebrewing and then attach a series of articles to it? DavidP02 22:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * there is one already, and this article's already in it. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What he said. For future reference, you can create a category using the same method as you would to create any other article; the only difference is that the article title begins with "Category:", e.g. Category:Whatever.  To add articles to the new category, you have to edit each of the articles and add  to them. --Mwalimu59 23:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay on the long article thing, I created a facsimile called homebrewing beer with a small nav section to get back to this article... Is this a way forward? If so I'll cut the process bit down to generic stuff DavidP02 23:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is getting overloaded with beer-specific homebrewing information again. Two things to keep in mind: there's a beer brewing article at homebrewing beer; and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. --Stlemur (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Extract brewing
The article seems to state that in order to use additional malt or adjunct grains a partial mashing process is required; in my experience this isn't always so, at least in the US brewing scene. Working in a (large) homebrew supply store I'd like to point out that a great many brewers utilize extra grains without a proper partial mash, instead steeping the grains for varying amounts of time (depends on the recipe and the brewer) even though malts used in this manner may contribute no fermentables due to lack of enzymes or improper temperature, they are effective in adding color, body (mostly in the form of dextrines, AFAIK) and flavor to an extract brew. MalkavianX 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This may be a national difference in practice. Typically only dead malts are used in the UK to add colour. 80.169.25.228 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Links
I added HomeBrewTalk because TastyBrew is listed but HBT is much larger with much more information including a Mediawiki based Wiki that is quite large and growing very fast!

Merger with Homebrewing beer
I suggest merging this article with Homebrewing beer. They mostly duplicate each other. Thetrick 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that they duplicate each other to a certain extent and need sorting out. I think the original intention was to move the "process" section from this article to Homebrewing beer.  I've add back the merge tag to indicate that something needs to be done, but it may not actually result in a full merge, rather a rationalisation of what text needs to be in each article instead of the current duplication. -- MightyWarrior 11:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be reasonable. If that is done, the remaining article should be made less beer-centric.  (I personally think that Homebrewing implicitly means Homebrewing beer and that if this article is to be a overview of the generic process for wine, beer, cider, mead, etc., it should be moved to Home alcohol production or something similar.  But that's a discussion best left for another day....)  Thetrick 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who homebrews beer I disagree, and think that homebrewing means cider and everything else, even spirits to an extent (everything leading up to the distilling). I think there should be a hombrewing article that deals with all the different alcohols that can be made and a homebrewing beer article that links from that that deals exclusively with beer homebrewing. (Justinboden86 14:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Since I agree homebrewing covers much more than beer, and it has been a while since the merge was proposed with no headway made, I'm going to remove the merge tags.  Big Nate 37 (T) 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Plastic Bottle reuse myth
This line needs to be removed: "For storage and dispensing some brewers use plastic; while PET plastic is popular, it should be considered that plastic has a limited shelf life and that, during degradation of polymers, monomers [known to be carcinogenic] are released." This is merely an urban legend and is mentioned at Snopes.com under toxins. Trumpy 03:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger
I reopened the merger conversation. It's been a year of editing both articles, and the previous conversation was hardly spectacular or decisive. Llamabr (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose the merger. Beer is not the only thing that's homebrewed; what about kvass, cider, wine, poitín, chicha.... --Stlemur (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could be, but the article is not about those things. I see someone added a mention of them yesterday.  That's a good start.  but right now, both articles are about the same thing.  Homebrewing of beer. Llamabr (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't justify a merger. That justifies an expansion of this article's non-beer sections. The problem is, people keep dumping things here instead of in homebrewing beer. --Stlemur (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It does seem to justify moving everything from homebrewing beer here. If the two articles have identical content, there's no reason to have the more specific one.  There's nothing in that article that's not also contained here (or that couldn't be). Llamabr (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's backwards. The beer information should go in one place, yes, not duplicated, but if it all gets moved here we have an article that woefully overemphasizes one aspect of homebrewing and drives all the others into a corner. --Stlemur (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's backward, too. But as it is now, there's two articles that say essentially the same thing.  Put them together.  As one aspect becomes emphasized in the big article, it can be taken out to form its own.  Right now Homebrewing is about homebrewing beer, as is Homebrewing beer.  Why should both articles exist if they're about the same thing? 23:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamabr (talk • contribs)


 * Because this article isn't supposed to be about homebrewing beer specifically, it's about homebrewing in general. I think we're agree on that. This article's flaws are not a reason to eliminate another article. --Stlemur (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If there were two articles, one called 'The Simpsons (show)', which was all about the simpson family, and another article called 'The Simpsons (family)' that was all about the simpsons family, I'd say that, although there are two different topics, right now there's only one article, in two places. You would merge them, and if someone wanted to come and write a new article about the show, they could. But right now there's no article about the show -- there's an article about the family, with a title about the show.

That's what we have here. An article about homebrewing beer, with a title about homebrewing in general. As it is, there's no reason to keep that article, since everything it says is included here. I say merge Homebrewing into Homebrewing beer, and then let someone write a general article about homebrewing, if you want. Llamabr (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are separate articles on the show and the family. --Stlemur (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your final comments leaves me a bit puzzled -- I don't think you took my previous point.


 * Anyway, The tag and the conversation have been there for 2 weeks now, with no interest, save yours. Let's put it to a vote.  I vote not to bother with the merger, and hope that someone gets around to cleaning up both articles.  Shall we remove the tag? Llamabr (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the merge and a tidy up. We need one article on homebrewing (which implies beer, but can include the brewing of other beverages which can be dealt with within a homebrewing article). The material on brewing in general which is present in the homebrewing beer article needs to be merged with Brewing, though a small summary style section of one or two paragraphs giving an overview of the brewing process would be appropriate. Homebrewing is not different to professional brewing except in terms of taxation and legal restrictions on selling. Very small scale breweries in the UK which are in people's kitchens, and use domestic equipment, are professional breweries. At the same time, homebrewers can and do hire professional breweries on which to make their homebrews. Of course homebrewers do mostly brew at home on domestic equipment and that should be detailed, but the article really needs to focus on the history, legality, organisation, competitions, etc of homebrewing as distinct from professional brewing, but the process of brewing itself should be neutral and linked from the Homebrewing, Beer and Brewery articles.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see merger as the only sensible way forward along with a total review of the material in both articles, because:-


 * The beer article is overly long and extremely confusing.
 * Some of the pictures in both articles simply do not represent the common practices of the majority of homebrewers.
 * Careful balancing of the the territorial tone in the main home brewing article is wholly undermined by a partial and US-centred repetition of information in the subsidiary article.
 * Secondary fermentation outside of the bottle or barrel is primarily a mid-European method of beer production and is simply not used in most UK/US/Australian brewing.

'Too many cooks have have spoiled the broth' here and both articles are in desperate need of clarity.

The main objection seems to be the different brewing methods applied. This can be addressed simply by dealing with the three main categories of musts and worts:-


 * Fruit and berry pressings
 * Diluted honeys and sugars
 * Hot mashed grains

The article can then deal with whether the resulting sugar solutions are fermented lambically or via the introduction of a specific yeast culture.

Territorial differences in technique should be dealt with certainly, but broadly, you add yeast to a fermentable sugar solution, condition, then drink the product. That is adequate information for this type of publication. This is not a brewing manual, it is a wikipedia entry! DavidP73 (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest merging this article with Homebrewing. They mostly duplicate each other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thetrick (talk • contribs) 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Discussion on this took place at Talk:Homebrewing.  Big Nate 37 (T) 21:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding comment moved by Chasingmytail

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum caution and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform the project members on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC) stop arguing children(lini) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.136.119 (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Horrible Pictures
The pictures here look horrible. Why is the guy fermenting his beer in a gasoline container? Get a few pictures of a glass carboy and some clean looking bottles. These pictures give home brewing a poor image. And what kind of person transfers their beer standing up like that? It just looks ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.151.39 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that he is able to fit 3-4 of those containers in the same space as 2 round carboys. I have been looking for a container of similar dimensions for fermentation and it never occurred to me to use a jerrycan. Chasingmytail (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a large Jerrycan, and an ingenious use of one. Red - Gasoline, Yellow - Desiel, Blue - Kerosene, Tan - Water (food grade), although you will see people using blue containers for water due to the natural association of blue to water. They used to be standard as either 2 or 4 gallons, but now come in many different sizes because of the durability and versatility.

Legal status in Ireland
I would like to offer the forum the following information concerning the legality of homebrewing in Ireland (Republic of Ireland). Homebrewing is fully legal in Ireland. The private brewing of beer and wine is allowed with no limit on amount. Although tax must be paid after a certain amount is exceeded. However as is the case with most other western countries it must be for private use and cannot be sold. The production of spirits (Liquor) is illegal however mainly due to the hazard of improper alcohol type production eg methanol, isopropanol etc.. Poorly worded I'm afraid but then again I am drinking a bit as I write this! Feel free to add this information (and reword it if you like)to the homebrewing section. Regards Maitredeconnaissance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maitredeconnaissance (talk • contribs) 07:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)