Talk:Islay single malts

Untitled
It won't allow me to add a link to the Bowmore Islay distillery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewanmorgan (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 June 2007


 * The extra level of detail you are trying to add here should all be on the Bowmore Single Malt page instead, this is a general page on Islay whisky with links to detail pages for each distillery. —MJBurrage • TALK  • 02:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Port Ellen
How come Port Ellen isn't on this page? I know it's mentioned in the main text, but it's not in the chart. --Islays 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Port Ellen is not in the table because it is closed as a distillery. It is included in the list of "lost" (i.e. closed) distilleries. —MJBurrage •  TALK  • 20:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This will need updating now, as Port Ellen is currently being rebuilt as a distillery, to be re-opened soon. Armin Grewe (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Bunnahababhain
Should Bunnahababhain (very near Caol Ila) be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.24.162 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed redirect
The redirect proposed twice today removes a significant amount of information and redirects to an article with very little of the information displayed here. True, chunks of it are lacking proper references, but they should be so hard to find and in my view efforts would be better directed to finding them. Please don't blank the page again without discussion. Ben  Mac  Dui  15:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I still feel there's no need for a separate article for each Scotch whisky region at all. My thinking is that the articles lack a level of independent, general interest notability to support themselves. Each article has consisted of the exact same thing: the same map that already appears at Scotch whisky and a list of distilleries in that region, which is already covered by the far more complete List of whisky distilleries in Scotland, where the table is sortable by region. This article does have more detail than most, but to put it bluntly, it's a whole bunch of unsourced non-notable trivia anyway. The lack of sources does not just leave questions of verifiability, it brings to mind questions of notability and whether there is undue weight being given here. I think there is.
 * Frankly, I also feel that all these separate articles are a disservice to readers and editors. There's too much of an impulse in Wikipedia's whisky coverage to take any term that is used and treat it as if it needs to have a whole separate article when that article would never possibly grow to more than a stub because the article is little more that a dictionary definition . I think fewer articles giving thorough coverage is a better way, as it gives readers an easier time to understand the framework and contrasts within whisky while also giving editors fewer articles to maintain, thereby reducing chances of outdated material hanging around, unsourced personal opinions being added, and trivial levels of detail being better managed. That's why I redirected these region articles. oknazevad (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. And I think the regular editors of this series will as well. Sure, they can be improved. This arrangement is really best for possible expansion. Also, I don't think this is the correct place for discussion, which should rather be at the main article talk page. Yworo (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree either. The main list is a just a bald list that, although adequate enough, provides nothing like the detail here. You will notice that even if 'B' class is a fraction over-optimistic, that the article is far from a stub and that its importance is also classed as 'High'. It's hard to see how an exploration of the historical details of Islay distilleries, both extant and closed, is ever going to make it into the main article and this suggestion is really just an argument for removing information. I understand that you don't think it is interesting information but that's not my view. Ben   Mac  Dui  17:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 19:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)