User talk:SilkTork/Beer Archive/Beer 2007

Re: O Dear
I saw your comment on my talk page about removing a chunk of history, but you didn't mention which article. Can I assume it was the beer style article? As I wrote in my comment, there is already a history section in the article and that section (the first history) seemed much more "encyclopedic" than the second history, which I removed. If you're referring to a different article, however, which one is that? Mikebe 09:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the section you removed:

"Jackson's book had a particular influence in North America where the writer Fred Eckhardt was also starting to explore the nature of beer styles. The wine importing company Merchant De Vin switched to importing beers mentioned in Jackson's book. Small brewers started up, producing copies and interpretations of the beer styles Jackson mentioned. And home-brewers started to construct recipes around the beers which eventually resulted in the formation in 1985 of the BJCP, an organisation originally set up to judge home-brewed beers brewed to specific styles but which eventually developed into something of a guide for American commercial brewpubs and craft brewers.   -    - While North America developed beer styles into a serious study with fixed parameters of bitterness, colour, aroma, yeast, ingredients and strength, other counties continued to mainly categorise beers loosely by strength and colour, with much overlapping of naming conventions. " SilkTork 12:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said in the comment when I removed it, this is American-centric. It is also completely unreferenced. And finally, the sentence regarding the BJCP, again, "which eventually developed into something of a guide for American commercial brewpubs and craft brewers" -- where are the references for this? Frankly, I see absolutely no evidence that this is true. Mikebe 12:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as being American-centric. This is a mention of America in a discussion of beer style history which has already mentioned several other countries. Mentioning America when it comes to the time that it appropriate to mention the influence America has had on the modern fascination for beer style doesn't appear to me to be America-centric. There are some who hold the view that the modern concept of "beer style" is entirely American.

"America exists, as do other countries." is an America-centric statement.

"Africa exist, as does the Middle East and America and other places." Is not America-centric. And deleting "and America" from that sentence under the view that it is America-centric is perhaps focusing too much on references to America. SilkTork 19:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongbow
I like the cut of your jib ! Have taken the liberty of polishing up your shiny ammends to Strongbow. Best wishes.Warburton62 20:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, the page will be unprotected. After seeing a request for page protection at WP:RFPP, I went to check the article history and the user talk pages, and I thought protection was warranted in this case. Many times people dispute the full protection of an article, so I wasn't surprised that they started telling me to unprotect the page when it really wasn't the right time. Usually if I go to a RFPP request, and see a potential edit war, I will protect in an anticipatory move. Anyway, thanks for letting me know, and thank you for the kind words.  Nish kid 64  20:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

List of beers topic discussion
I am weary of the extreme choice that you made concerning List of commercial brands of beer. Perhaps there was a Portal discussion (which I don't read) that helped you come to this choice, but by editing the topic in the way that you did, it no longer looks like a list topic. It is a category put in article form. So far, on every "list" page that I am familiar with, the list contains the information directly connected to the list (a "List of episodes" contains the names of all episodes for a show with links to articles if they exist, not a link to a category containing the articles that have been created, which means if an article does not exist, unfamiliar people will not know this). In essence, your change makes the topic feel like a soft redirect because the topic itself no longer contains any useful information, only links to where it can be found. On top of this, though the list was large and difficult to maintain, it did contain an enormous number of beers for which no articles have been created. Now, most of that is lost to cutting 100 countries down to 50 regions with possibly incomplete categories. To me, the better choice would have been leave the page as it was prior to your edits with an intro or See Also link to the Category: Beer and breweries by region. However, I did not want to outright revert without some discussion here, on my page, or on the talk page of the article. — CobraWiki ( jabber 00:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, thanks for getting in touch. It was a major edit - and you are right - it would have been better to have had a prior discussion. My mistake was that I confused it with List of breweries and Beer and nationality - both of which I have been working on for some time, so it didn't appear to me to be a sudden edit. I can see now, that I hadn't done any work on that article since May 2006, when I changed the intro. Anyway - the article as it stood, as you are aware, was a red link farm. And most of the links that did work went to the wrong places. The article was not helpful, was not easy to manage, and was simply encouraging people to list non-notable beers. It should have been proposed for deletion - and it may still get that proposal - but I could see some value in it as a more user-friendly guide to the information and articles that people wanted, than the main Beer and breweries by region category. I take your point about listing beers that Wiki does not currently have articles on. But articles are not the places to post such requests. This is where they should go: Requested articles. In the meantime, if you wish to browse through a list of over 30,000 beers you may take a look here at RateBeer.com or BeerAdvocate.com. SilkTork 00:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Cocktails
First, thank you very much for the award. It is nice to be recognized for largely thankless work. :-)

Second, please realize that I am no expert in mixed drinks. I rarely drink the things myself. I only got involved because I saw the original List of cocktails was such a horrible mess, that I had to fix an error, or two, or twenty, or two-hundred, etc.

In the beginning, I, like you, tried to bring the beer mixes in line with the cocktails. Since then, I have learned that there are "true cocktails", which are mixed drinks where the primary alcohol is a distilled spirit. Beer mixes (and that term was in use before I ever got involved, but I do not know the derivation) are for mixed drinks where beer is the primary one.

Is the distinction important? To me, personally, not in the slightest. To cocktail enthusiasts (and some beer enthusiasts), it's quite a different story. In the Talk:List of cocktails archive, you will find some discussion about it. Likewise in some of the early WP:MIX talk archives, and also at Bartending.

I have seen a number of potential reasons for the distinction, but one that makes sense is that when you mix certain types of alcohols together, you are more likely to get nastier hangovers and become drunk more quickly. Most beer mixes appear to focus on the "drunk faster" (despite the nasty hangover the next day). Cocktails, on the other hand, may not even pack that much of a punch, but to aficionados, it's about the complex flavors that develop as the various flavors mix and blend and swirl around inside the mouth, OR how the particular drink looks (layered shooters).

Therefore, there definitely seems to be a cultural difference between beer mixes and cocktails, even in the fans of each type of drink.

All that being said, I think that the professional bartenders in the WikiProject Mixed Drinks, and anyone else interested in the discussion, should make the decision. If you don't mind, I would like to reverse the category changes you made on the beer mixes that are now classified as cocktails with beer. To me, it seems a step backwards, since one thing I have been trying to do is get the two clearly split apart. I don't want to start an edit war, or anything. And if people who actually know a lot about this subject (and that may well include you) reach a consensus to merge everything back together again, then I'm totally fine with that. I'd just rather revert for now, while the edits are fresh and easily un-doable, than wait and have a tougher time making the changes later.

I would appreciate your feedback. If you agree, let me know. If you strongly disagree, also let me know sooner. :-) -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 04:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On second thought, after a fair amount of Googling, I definitely see your point. However, I think the distinction is still an important one: cocktails with beer and "beer cocktails" (which appears to be the more common term for what someone here at Wikipedia originally dubbed a "beer mix") do seem to be somewhat different beasts within the same zoo of animals (like orangutans and chimpanzees or great white sharks and hammerheads). So, I think I will go ahead and essentially revert the drinks you changed, but change them to "beer cocktails" instead of "beer mixes", and then create a new article on "beer mixes" once I figure out exactly what a beer mix really is. I hope that you will agree with that logic. If not, we can still always bring it up for discussion.


 * I thought of another distinction between beer mixes (old definition) and cocktails... At least in the U.S., there are many bars that are only allowed to serve beer and wine -- distilled spirits are prohibited. However, they can sometimes serve the various ingredients, and the customer can mix them directly. Since cocktails, by definition, are served with spirits, they would be forbidden. Perhaps the person who chose the name "beer mix" originally had that in mind. Perhaps it is even a distinction that is used in some places. However, it does seem that "beer cocktail" is the phrase currently in vogue with the media.


 * I will change them to beer cocktails, and I hope that will satisfy rather than offend. :-) It's always so tricky writing these, because one cannot assume that things work in other countries, or even elsewhere within the same country, as it does in one's own part of the world. Further, one cannot always assume that anything on Wikipedia is automatically correct, which I more-or-less did when it came to the term "beer mix". Live and learn, I guess. -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 05:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I prefer beer cocktails to beer mixes. And I am as guilty as anyone in using the term beer mix at some point in discussion on the cocktail project. But as it just seems to be a Wikipedia editor term, it's not one we really should be using. It may be an idea to change the current article titles which say (beer mix) in brackets to something that is used outside of Wiki. If beer cocktail is that expression, and you have googled it, then that sounds good to me. SilkTork 09:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked at what you have done. I'm happy. SilkTork 09:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yay! I'm happy you're happy. I left you more over on my talk page. -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 10:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And another response. Sorry for cluttering your talk page, but I don't know if you are watching my talk page or not. -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 10:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Mixed Drinks - Important discussions starting
Hi. Philvarner and I have various thoughts on how to restructure the entire mixed drinks and bartending section of Wikipedia, and that also squarely ties in with WikiBooks. Some of these are pretty sweeping changes.

Some of the ideas Phil has suggested involve eliminating, merging, or otherwise changing how Beer and Wine cocktails are distinguished (or not) from true cocktails. I know this is a topic we have both discussed in the past. Your input would be very helpful.

On top of that, a large part of my vision for the outcome of this restructuring involved good collaboration with the sister WikiProjects, both here at Wikipedia and elsewhere. Since pubs and bars tie in so closely with beer, too, I think it would be great if you could pass along an invitation to other Beer WikiProject members, too. We have even created a Bartending WikiProject Task Force that is going to be incorporating some important, but largely neglected, areas of Wikipedia related to pub life. I could use help with that, too, because I probably know less about all that than I do about mixed drinks. These are actually two separate requests, but feel free to pass them along to whomever you feel might be interested.

Please visit the Restructure Section to read, discuss, and hopefully help plan these important changes. And visit WP:BARTF for the Bartending Task Force.

Finally, I have not forgotten your invitation to join in the discussions concerning the infobox for the beer project. I do intend to do that, but I have been so busy with so many different things, that I just haven't had a chance yet. I have actually tweaked a few things at your Project. Basically only little things that help tie your templates and categories in line with the other related WikiProjects under Food & Drink. As BARTF gets more active, I imagine that I will probably get even more involved with the Beer project. Should be fun!

Thank you. Have a great week! -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 12:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Beeradvocate logo.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:Beeradvocate logo.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. If it's fair use, don't forget to also use it on an article page. Strangerer (Talk) 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Beer rating
Hi - the article was deleted as per Criteria for speedy deletion. The article read like an advertisement for some beer forums and companies, aside from appearing to be non-notable. If you feel confident that you can re-write the article to satisfy these policies, feel free to re-create it. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand from your comment that there was no discussion? SilkTork 18:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My question being so I can see the reasoning that led to the deletion. SilkTork 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article was deleted according to the "speedy deletion" policy and thus no WP:AFD discussion was attempted. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. It's been a while since I've seen it, so I don't know how it developed (or even if it did). I only noticed it was gone because there was a question about one of the images used in the article. One of those odd coincidences! Anyway - I've now pulled it up and pasted it onto my user page under User:SilkTork/Welcome. I agree the language used is not appropriate - if I remember I pretty much took it from the websites themselves. I'll get around to tidying it up over the next few days, and - if you don't mind - I'll ask you to cast your eye over it before restoring it. Regards SilkTork 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem - it just shouldn't sound promotional. If you can add some references that prove the subject's notability, it should be fine. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  19:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewes Arms
The Lewes Arms boycott was one of the most signficant events affecting the company in recent years. They issued a press release about it - see[ http://www.greeneking.co.uk/our_news.php here]. A direct quote from that press release reads as follows Greene King chief executive Rooney Anand added, "The Lewes Arms is a very special local pub with a unique place in the life of the town. "We underestimated the depth of feeling and level of reaction about our initial decision and I believe that the conclusion the team put forward to return Harveys to the bar is the right one." - The dispute prompted a complete turnabout in their policy that may well have repurcussions for other pubs that have lost the right to sell local beers. One of the Green King directors (Mike Angela) was eventually sacked from the company because it was his decision to remove Harveys and he refused to change his mind. It turned into a public relations disaster. It was only after the appointment of a new director in charge of the newly created "local pubs" division that the turnabout in policy happened and so far this policy change has only occured at the Lewes Arms. Just look at the amount of press coverage it got. It was covered by nearly all of the major newspapers and by the Brewing industry press. In particular look at this - This was a four page article in the G2 section of the Guardian. The front cover of the G2 section for that edition can be seen and the main photograph acccompanying the article here. It was almost certainly the fallout from this article that led to Mark Angela getting the boot. The dispute was featured on BBC Radio 4 in two separate programmes. The Today Programme and You and Yours (the consumer programme). The latter programme on Radio 4 featured The Publican's Business and City correspondent Hamish Champ commenting directly on this dispute and its effect on the company. He had written about the dispute in his weekly colum a number of times see here for example. The campaign attracted the attention of the Mayor of Lewes (see his comment on the Hamish Champ article above and also the Daily Mail article). It also attracted the direct involvement of the MP for Lewes Norman Baker. He managed to get a stay of execution on the beer twice and had direct discussions with members of the Greene King board trying to tell them that withdrawing the beer would be a disastrous PR mistake but they didn't listen. The story was featured heavily in a number of significant beer related blogs eg here and here (this is very widely read)) and in many regional CAMRA newsletters up and down the country (eg Darlington and Cambridge). It even got in to Private Eye (here) The story was covered by Reuters here and UPI see here and was seen and syndicated in various newspapers around the world inclusing USA, Australia and Jamaica. The day that Greene King announced the turnaround there were reporters from Der Spiegel inteviewing outside of the pub. Although it may at first appear to be some minor local dispute it became something much greater and has wider implications still. What you removed covered the issues concisely and had full citations. Jooler 23:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I note what you are saying. However, there was also controversy regarding Hardys and Hansons, Morland and Ridley's. The section Takeovers and controversy which contains the details on Lewes arms makes reference to those as well. It's about getting the balance right and not overloading a general article on a brewery with a lengthy section in which details not concerning Greene King directly ("Harveys Best Bitter was the winner the Gold Medal for Best Bitter at the annual CAMRA Champion Beer of Britain awards two years in succession in 2005 and 2006 and is extremely popular in Sussex") are expanded upon. One or two sentences would seem to cover the main points. ("Towards the end of 2006, a pub in Lewes, East Sussex started a well-publicised protest against Greene King removing the locally produced Harveys Best Bitter from sale. [5] [6]. On 20 April 2007, under media pressure [16], the company announced that it would reinstate the Harveys ales at the pub".) If you feel that the Lewes dispute is notable enough to have a long section then it probably needs its own page. I will create such a page for you and link to it from the Greene King page. It may be challenged by other editors, in which case it will go through discussion and you will be able to put your points forward there. Regards SilkTork 11:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. The new article is Lewes Arms controversy, and there are links to it from Greene King, Harveys and Lewes. I will also make a redirect from Lewes Arms in case anyone does a search on that. Good luck. SilkTork 12:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a quick attempt to tone down the language. However the article still needs to be a little more factual, and a little less contentious. I'll copy this discussion to the talk page so people can see the background to the creation of the page, and that it hasn't emerged from nowhere. SilkTork 12:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Harveys Best Bitter was the winner the Gold Medal for Best Bitter... is extremely popular in Sussex etc - The points that you removed here are factual, well-reported, not in the least contentious and very important to understanding the nature of the dispute. It was Greene King's total misjudgment of how important the beer was to locals; their failure to recognise how highly it is has been praised by both CAMRA and more importantly by the people who regularly drink it in Sussex and their total disregard for the local opinion that led to the problem. These facts were covered by the main Guardian article which also covers the 4:1 citation request - "Harveys has been brewed a few hundred metres away, beside the River Ouse, by an independent family firm since 1790. It was voted best bitter in 2005 and 2006 at the Great British Beer Festival. In the Lewes Arms, as a "guest beer", it outsold Greene King's own IPA, brewed in faraway Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, at least four-toone. But GK, as supplier as well as retailer, made more from every pint of IPA sold than Harveys. Get rid of Harveys, the thinking went, and the locals, after a bit of grumbling, would switch to IPA and GK would make more money. But it hasn't worked out that way. ... " I see no reason to remove this well-sourced information. Jooler 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We still need to introduce balance. For example - GK replaced Harvey's Best with GK's IPA, which - as I'm sure you know - not only won Gold at GBBF, but was also runner up to Champion - therefore in the eyes of CAMRA, a better beer than Harvey's because it achieved a higher accolade. That is if you think the lottery of the voting at GBBF means anything. What matters in the Lewes Arms situation is that the regulars preferred Harvey's. If you want to bring in external acclaim and such like, then the marketing power of GK is such that various awards and sales power (IPA is the most popular session bitter in the UK) could be used. Stick to the facts, not polls and opinions. You might want to bring in that I personally regard Harvey's Bitter as one of the best beers in the world:, but I don't think that will really help the article either. Our own feelings don't really count here. What counts is producing balanced and factual entries on notable items. We are not about praising things we personally like and heaping dirt on things we don't like. If you feel you might be too close and too emotionally involved in the Lewes Arms situation to be impartial, then leave it alone and let others do the editing. There are plenty of other areas on Wiki that need attention. Regards SilkTork 22:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also add that as far as the article is concerned I stuck to the facts but you have not. You made direct reference to Mark Angela getting the boot, which is something I resisted. He made the decision to remove the beer, he was then replaced on the board and subsequently the beer came back. These are facts but what I wrote on your talk page is my (and many others) interpretation of the facts. I didn't say in the article that Mark Angela got the boot. Only that once he had gone the policy changed. It is up to the reader to draw their own conclusions on this. Jooler 22:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Edit it. Do the right thing. I did a cut and paste to set up an intro to the article. Nothing more significant. Feel free to make it accurate and improve it. Regards again - SilkTork 23:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually - GK IPA was overall runner-up in 2004, but Harveys BB was overall runner up in 2006 as well as being Gold Medal winner for BB in 2005. Therfore I think that trumps GK IPA. Jooler

It's nice to know. Thanks. SilkTork 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The point regarding the aclaim of the beer is that the removal not only offended regulars of the pub, and not just the whole town of Lewes where is is brewed but people all over (but particularly in Sussex where it is extremely popular) How many Chinese restaurants do you know that serve a local bitter? I know 2 that serve Harveys and neither of them are in Lewes! If it has just been a few regulars that had boycotted the pub then things would have gone they way that GK expected, and eventuallythe whole thing would have been forgotten about. It was the overall disgust from all over the place and the publicity it received from admirers of the beer that eventually turned the tide. This wouldn't have happened if it had been some other less acclaimed local beer. If Haverys BB was less favoured than GK IPA I don't think anyone outside of the regular drinkers would have given a toss about its removal. Boing. Time for bed. Jooler 23:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I should also point out that when Harveys was removed the pub continued to sell other non-local guest beers. It really was a decision aimed squarely at Harveys and not just at non-GK beers in general. There was also the ridiculous "Lewes Arms Bitter" business in which GK were wrapped on the knuckles by the town council for trying pass off a beer produced in BSE as having some connection with Lewes. They were using the Town's Coat of Arms on the pump clip and the council told them that the sole right to bear the crest was given to the council by Charles II. See here GK backed down saying that they were withdrawing the beer for commecail reasons (i.e. no one drank it) . Really must go to bed now. Jooler 23:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

40 Oz. (Malt liquor) and 40 Oz. (Malt Liquor)
Ok I see the problem and I'm sorry about undoing your change.Where's the tea,I'm Thirsty?Take Care Arnon Chaffin 12:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kettle's broken. Fancy a cold beer instead? SilkTork 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Coors Light
I see how you merged the Coors Light article with the Coors Brewing Company article without any discussion. I have no problem with this, except for the fact that the brief paragraph that exists on the main page does not do this beer justice, especially when the original page had more information. If you look at Blue Moon, which is another Coors product, it has its own page and there doesn't seem to be any sort of argument about this. Please respond, because unless there is some Wikipedia rule against specific beers having unique pages, I will advocate this merger to be undone Rpgman456 15:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Coors Light. An interesting situation. There are few rules on Wiki, though there are guidelines reached by consensus. The matter of when we should have an article on a beer, and when a beer should be part of an article on the parent brewery has been raised a few times. Indeed, the question of notability of parent breweries has been raised a few times, and some breweries have been deleted from Wiki after discussion. Unfortunately, despite much discussion on this topic, and an attempt to define a working guideline, the best consensus has been Notability (breweries) and WikiProject Beer/Beer brand article suggestions, which were mainly created by myself from discussion with others over time. Coors Light does exist, and we have information about that beer on the brewery page. A search for Coors Light will take anyone directly to the section on that page where the beer is discussed. Your question is regarding if Coors Light is notable enough to have an article to itself, or if the current sentences contain all that is significant and important about that beer. The information left out is: "to compete with ... competitor breweries"; the dates of awards in the Great American Beer Festival (be aware that over such 200 awards are given out at that festival every year, and the particular awards that Coors Light gained are not in themselves notable); details of the packaging, which was prefaced with the words: "Coors Light, like many Coors beverage products, is available in many different forms"; some nutrition information (which might be considered trivial); and finally some original research/opinion on the "Frost brewed" marketing term. My own feeling is that this information is not important, but I'm happy to have a discussion about that. The whole of the old article can be found here:. I felt I had brought over to the parent article Coors Brewing Company the details that mattered. Within that parent article the most notable beers may be discussed in sufficient depth to give readers some idea of why they are notable, with reference to reliable sources. This already happens with Caffrey's, Old Speckled Hen and Pabst Blue Ribbon, beers which I think you'll admit have a longer history, importance and notability than Coors Light. The main claim is that Coors Light is the 3rd best selling beer in the USA. Well, Bud Light is the top selling beer, and that brand redirects to the parent company. I hope that this has given you a full background to why the beer was merged with the parent brewery in the first place and why I restored it to that condition. Any further questions, please feel free to get in touch. Many regards SilkTork 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that the Coors Light article was lacking important information, but seeing as the Coors Brewing Company is the fifth-largest brewery in the world, and Coors Light is the 3rd largest selling beer in the United States, there is a large cultural significance to this specific beer, possibly only to the United States, but that can still be imperative. I also understand that there is no real consensus on Wikipedia when discussing specific beers, but just the mere fact that Bud Light re-directs to the parent brewery does not mean that the beer lacks notability, it merely means that no one has taken the time to make a well-researched, lucid, and comprehensive page about the beer, even though there are thousands of reliable sources one can procure information from. Like I said before, a page is created for Blue Moon, which is a product made by the Coors Brewing Company, and first brewed in 1995. Does the article remain because there is more information/sourced material? A simple google search of "Coors Light" brings up over 700,000 pages, which means anyone can add more to the article. Heck, someone could write a book simply on the marketing strategies, famous people used in commercials, and ever-changing packaging designs. I see we have our differences on the topic of starting pages on notable subjects without having time or patience on writing comprehensive material. My theory is that if one can start a page that clears Wikipedia notability with some sourced information, others will be more proactive and emulate this process. Whereas, many of these contributers may be timid when starting a new Wikipage for fear that it will be erased. I started that page, so I guess I have a minor bias about keeping it, but the information on it was not aimed as a final draft. Many parts of the Wiki article that are circumvented with this merger to the Coors Brewing Company I don't have a problem with, the biggest problem I have is that now probably no one will ever add significantly to it. How can you add a history of this brew in such a short amount of space? Some minor issues that I have with your last statement is when you call the nutrition facts "trivial," but when it appears on Keystone, it adds to the article. In a non-sarcastic tone, is there a difference here between using this in the two different articles? Also, when you say, "This already happens with Caffrey's, Old Speckled Hen and Pabst Blue Ribbon, beers which I think you'll admit have a longer history, importance and notability than Coors Light." This is surely an opinionated statement when you encompass the vast world of beer articles on Wikipedia. Other than Blue Moon, which is a 12 year old, macro-created faux-Witbier, Killian's (yet another Coors product), Miller Lite, King Cobra (malt liquor), Rolling Rock etc... all have their own pages. All I'm saying is, if a beer has notability, let it grow into its own so others will freely add to it. Rpgman456 15:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Holding up examples of bad editing as a defense for bad editing is understandable, but has - thankfully - never carried much weight on Wiki. Nor is the fact that you can find poor articles on Wiki an excuse to let them remain on Wiki. That aside, I have a lot of agreement with some of your views. I certainly agree that we should lead by example. And I agree we should encourage people to create articles of note which are supported by good referencing. Where we mainly diverge is in respect of a) The notability of Coors Light and b)The way that Coors Light should be dealt with on Wiki. What makes things awkward is that, as I pointed put above, there has not yet been worked out a clear guide for how editors can assess if a beer or brewery is notable. However, it is worth noting that in the Wiki guidelines is this sentence: "Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"." This section is worth looking at:, as that is what has taken place with Coors Light both before and after your edit. These sections are also worth looking at: and. I point to them to indicate that because there may be coverage of Coors Light on the internet, what really matters for Wiki is the quality of that coverage. And that quality matters more and more as Wiki grows and more people get involved. The tendency for Wiki to get swamped with trivia is increasing all the time. Finally, take a look at this which outlines our situation fairly clearly. I'll quote two sentences here: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." and "If a non-notable product or service has been written about in its own article, be bold and rename, refactor, or merge the article into an article with a broader scope, such as the company's article, creating it if necessary." I am quite willing to assist you in making an article on Coors Light if you are willing to provide good sources for the notability of the beer, and an outline of the sort of non-trivial information that you feel could be contained within such an article. Regards SilkTork 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think our basic philosophy of Wiki notability may be slightly different, and I think that is to be expected, especially when in the category of beers there is no real consensus. I may be incorrect, but I'm interpreting your view of notability as meaning that the product is worthy of having an article written about it (being "noted," or "attracting notice"). This is where things get dicey. Coors Light as the actual brew inside the packaging is just another macro-brewed, adjunct-filled, light-beer. It is neither the first light-beer brewed chronologically (that would be Miller Lite), and there is no real significance obtained through ingredients or taste. The notability of this beer lies in the vast amount of corporate/athletic sponsorship, millions of dollars in annual revenue, regional distribution areas, U.S. Patented packaging designs (who by the way just changed so that the depictions of mountains on front label turn blue when "ideal" temperature has been reached), omnipresent commercial/ad campaigns (including Super Bowl ads), and the iconic logo design (which includes taglines: "The Silver Bullet" and "Tap The Rockies") that has made its way on everything from bar clocks, billiards tables, and billboard ads. Maybe a page entitled "Coors Light Ad Campaigns" or "Coors Light Marketing Strategies" is a more amicable idea. Still, I know other users would probably question the subjectivity of such an article. I am neither a fan, nor am I employed by any company that has any connections with this beer; I just feel that as a resident of the United States, where the "light-beer" phase is such a productive business and has become woven into the social atmosphere to such an extent where it is hard to go anywhere without encountering advertisement, that in-it-of-itself covers the notability requirements. Believe me, I feel that beers produced by the Coors, Anheuser-Busch, Pabst/G. Heileman, and SABMiller's of the world are sad excuses for beer, but they continue to press their products on the American public through questionable ad campaigns and they use millions of dollars in the process... Rpgman456 15:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I love the idea. But it might be straying into Original Research with some of that. There may be some studies on advertising which have included Coors Light. That could be worth looking into. But even then it may be a case of having that as a section within the Coors Brewing Company article as it is to do with corporate strategy rather than, as you say, the beer itself. There is the bare bones of a section in the Coors Brewing Company article at the moment: Coors Brewing Company which may be worth expanding and filling out with some decent research and decent writing. Regards SilkTork 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Killian's
Hi Stlemur! You undid my merge to the company. No problem. Looking at your notes you undid it before I had completed the edit to the parent company, and so must have wondered where the content was. I am following the Wiki guidelines Notability (organizations and companies). Your edit was understandable in that you were not aware of what I was doing. As we know each other I have no problem with you in future having a quick word with me to check on something like this. Regards SilkTork 15:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you're doing, but to me it looks like a stealth deletion; there is no discussion consensus on even merging the article, much less deleting & redirecting, so as far as I'm concerned it falls under blanking. I strongly suggest you seek consensus before going on. --Stlemur 08:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus appears to have been given: "If a non-notable product or service has been written about in its own article, be bold and rename, refactor, or merge the article into an article with a broader scope, such as the company's article, creating it if necessary." That is the guide line - though there is always room to prove that the Killian product line is notable. We've been looking for this guideline on the BeerProject for some time, and there it is in Notability (organizations and companies). It was pointed out to me earlier when it was suggested that our Brewery notability essay be merged into it. But I actually resisted that merger at the time, thinking that we could get our house in order and formulate an intelligent and rigorous criteria that would stand against criticism and attack; however it is vain hope. If you wish to question or challenge the Organizations and Companies Notability consensus yourself, then do so. I assure you I don't want to get into an edit war with you, so I will leave the Killian stuff alone. Wiki is a big place, I hope we can both find stuff to do that doesn't bring us into future conflict. I still have memories of our previous encounters! Regards SilkTork 22:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Baltic porter
Hello. I have reverted your redirect. I believe it merits its own article. I mean, it's a good idea to include info on the "parent" article, but I don't agree with the redirect. Let me know if you still disagree. Renata 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I can see how someone might consider the redirect odd at first glance. However, if you note, the Baltic porter article consists of one paragraph, one picture, and a list of beers. The beers are random and non-notable. Such lists are commonly frowned upon and removed from articles. When the list is removed the article is simply a stub. When there is more information that may be the time to consider splitting it off from the main article and creating a stand alone article. As you are probably aware, Baltic porter is stout. The place to discuss it is in the general article on stout, and it is helpful to a reader who is looking for information on Baltic porter to be directed to the article on stout where Baltic porter can be discussed in context. I would direct your attention to Irish stout, Imperial Stout, Milk stout, Oatmeal stout, Chocolate stout and Oyster stout, all of which have been accepted into the main article. There has been some discussion on these merges, see Talk:Stout. I accept your concern, and am grateful to you for letting me know what you have done. There are always alternative views, and it's good to hear what other readers and editors are thinking. My own view is that Baltic porter could have its own article, but it's just not ready at the moment. However, that is only my view - if I haven't managed to convince you and would like to get a wider view then please raise the matter on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer. Regards SilkTork 19:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Beer rating
I can't be bothered with an endless revert war. The companies/organisations using this article to promote themselves offer no indication of notability and no reliable sources. To save endless edits back and forward how about I take the article to AfD to get consensus? Nuttah68 19:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That is what I have suggested to you on your talk page. I have no problem with a consensual and appropriate action. Blanking pages because you don't like or understand something is frowned upon on Wiki. Regards SilkTork 19:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, we seem to have contacted at the same time. I did not blank the article and nothing relevant to the subject was removed, merely the spam for the organisations. However, you appear to agree with my plan so I'll AfD the article. Nuttah68 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Alcoholic beverages on Rye beer
SilkTork,

Just wondering about the alcohol template on the rye beer page, which you recently removed. I'm not really sure about this, but wouldn't the tag be appropriate there? (Or not?) The rye beer article appears in that template itself -- or at least it did the last time I looked, but maybe that's changed -- although I could see that it might belong with some beer template instead. Thoughts? --Daniel11 19:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a look at the tag and its history, and I can see what the thinking was, and how Rye Beer got in there from the start. I've had a tidy, and I think it is clearer now. What do you think? SilkTork 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think that's an improvement, and a good solution if it's ok by WP standards to link to categories from within a regular page/template. I personally have no idea what Wikipolicy says about that, but anyway I like the changes, it makes the template a lot clearer.

Also, just in case you don't know -- and maybe you already knew this -- if you reply anywhere other than somebody's talk page, they won't get a message that there's a reply, so for instance when you comment on your own talk page instead of on mine, I wouldn't know you'd responded except by checking your talk page -- there'd be no automatic highlighted message. It's still up to you whether you want to use it that way! Cheers --Daniel11 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I hold the conversation in the place it started. If I'm dealing with a new or inexperienced Wiki member and the conversation started on my talk page, then I'll continue here, but do a cut and paste on the other person's talk page of everything that is said. Cheers! SilkTork 06:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tetley -> Carlsberg UK
You are planning to edit the article accordingly, I hope, since it now makes little sense after your moving it. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your message. I suspect you sent me this before I had made some alterations to Carlsberg UK brewery. I hope you find that it makes at least some kind of sense to you at this point. If not, please feel free to add or alter accordingly. Regards SilkTork 12:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless Carlsberg UK was founded in 1822 by Joshua Tetley, not really.


 * Also, "in 1998 it was taken over by Carlsberg, who had previously had a 50% stake" and "The company is now called Carlsberg UK Limited and is a part of Carlsberg AS group" requires amending. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit the article. It's only a stub at the moment and could do with some attention. There are two directions in which to take it - it could remain as an article about the brewery, or it could go in the direction you are suggesting to be about the UK division of the Carlsberg company. My own feeling is that it should be about the brewery itself. Do you have an interest in beer in general? Have you thought about joining WikiProject Beer - our activity is sporadic, and sometimes we have arguments, but our intention is to achieve some form of consensual conformity about beer articles. Regards SilkTork 12:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Cask Ale article - permission to post
Hi,

just to prevent people asking this question endlessly, repetitively, over and over again:

wrt Cask ale, which you wrote for some other website then copied to Wikipedia - could you drop a note to permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org stating that you own the copyright to this text, which appears on multiple websites, and license it under the GFDL?

See Copyright problems for more details, if needed. Thanks (and apologies for being a bureaucrat...) --Alvestrand 09:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Will do. SilkTork 13:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Home brewing

 * I do that as well. Mostly kit with a twist (using my home grown hops, etc). The most interesting beer I made was a kvass. Beer from bread! Amazing. If you do it, it's best to use bakers yeast rather than brewer's yeast. I was stunned that it was possible to make beer from ingredients that can be found in most people's home larder. Shows how simple and basic beer actually is. SilkTork 12:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I had never heard of kvass before... I am keen to give that a try, I am a few hours from Pittsburgh, but I am an avid fan of baseball, and my son and I are trying to visit every Major League team in North America. One thing that is a favorite in our home on the holidays is mead although I have never fermented my own. (Much like kvass, there are only a couple folks who make mead here in the states, but most decent wine shops will have a bottle or two hiding somewhere.) A couple members of my family really dislike most wines, and we could never get a consensus, so we gave mead a try a few years back and it has become a family tradition ever since. At some point I want to try making some at home. RobHoitt 12:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Resize image/Belgian Beer
I would appreciate it if you would reconsider/revert the miniaturisation of the image in the Belgian beer article. There are two reasons: 1. the image is now so small, it is very unclear what it is, and 2. the size reduction has left a large empty space on the page. Thanks. Mikebe 10:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. However it is Wiki guideline that images are not forced because users can select their own viewing size. Images Image use policy Manual_of_Style. The guidelines do allow for adjustments in size if the image is not readable. Though, in that case, it might be advisable to find another image that is not going to cause other users a problem. Incidentally, I didn't shrink or miniaturise the image - I simply removed the size forcing.

If you'd like to see images larger: Go to "my preferences" then "files" then select a thumbnail size of 300px and the image will appear larger for you. I hope that helps - if not, please get back to me with some beers and a doughnut! Regards SilkTork 13:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think: wonderful! Yes, that is much better. The problem was that Leffe is brewed by....(the company whose name good beer-lovers cannot speak). As Belgians, they were not happy to see a product of a multi-national corporation that has brought shame to their country's wonderful beer reputation as the symbol of Belgian beer. The problem was not with the beer itself -- the problem was the brewer. Your solution is excellent. Thanks for your understanding and help! Mikebe 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition
Thank you for the recognition of all the hard work I have done. The Exceptional Newcomer Award for my work on James Squire means a lot to me and the amount of time spent researching the history of James. I have so far spent about 6 months over the last year or so researching and still have more research to chase up. It makes me feel that someone out there has actually read and appreciated my input. I would be interested in knowing how you came across this page? Macr237 07:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the Beer Project page. Are you planning to do any more such articles? An article on John Boston would be right up your street. SilkTork 08:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking about John Boston. I think he will be even harder to do as there is even less on him. I'm afraid that it will be a stub, but I will look into it. Macr237 09:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I put a source for John Boston into the Squire article. Check it out: . It's a good starting point. SilkTork 22:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I read that a just after my last post. I am a tad worried about calling John Boston the first brewer, because technically he did not brew beer.


 * I understand your concern. It appears he used corn, and he didn't use hops. Not using hops isn't an issue - hops are a flavouring of beer, and for the first 6 thousand years beer was flavoured with herbs other than hops. And there are commercial beers available today that don't use hops. The corn is slightly more problematic as, even though it is used in many beers today, it is not the sole ingredient. Technically an alcoholic beverage made entirely from corn is beer, as with Cauim and Tella, and it is when Boston discovered this in whatever encyclopedia he was using, that he decided to make beer. But it is not modern beer as would be understood by the average reader, and I guess I should go back and make an adjustment to the Squire article. It is possible (though this is speculation and so can't go in the article) that the native Australians might have had a local beer-like alcoholic beverage - though I am not aware of any research in that area. Hmmmm. SilkTork 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you've gone and done it haven't you? I have made a start on the John Boston page. Oh the humanity of it all! Oh well even more research! Also I think your latest edit is much more accurate. This subject seems to be hotly debated in Australian brewing history. Macr237 23:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Beer categories
I object to your reversion. I think Non-alcoholic beer is a phenomenon of its own, warranting a separate category. It is not appropriate to have lists of things in wikipedia articles--that is what categories are for. If you have a different way of categorizing non-alcoholic beers, I am open to hearing it but I do not see how reverting my edits without explanation or discussion affects this issue. Frankly, I also find it condescending the way you have told me that I have made "mistakes" in editing categories and reverted them without any discussion, explanation, or pointers towards policy. Based on my understanding of the general policies on wikipedia, the category for non-alcoholic beer should exist, and should be populated by individual articles on these brews. I am open to discussion on this issue, but please talk with me before just going and brashly reverting my edits. It was not my intention to start an edit-war but I am going to continue to revert your edits as long as you revert mine without explanation or discussion. Cazort 23:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was not my intention to be condescending. It was my intention to be friendly, helpful and supportive, and to share with you my own experiences of dealing with categories. I felt my comments were encouraging you to continue editing categories, and to get involved with the beer project. Though I agree and accept that I didn't give you a full explanation for my editing. It is something that happens now and again, and I am guilty as others for that. It usually boils down to the whole nature of how we all do our Wiki editing. We log on at odd moments - perhaps to do some reading, perhaps to do some editing, or perhaps to response to messages or check on some activity. While on Wiki something may catch our eye which we'll then edit. Depending on time and other circumstances we may then give a full explanation of what we have done or we may not. Certainly where there may be some controversy it is always advised to give an explanation, and if one hasn't the time for that, then leave the editing for another moment. We are, however, all human and frail and few of us edit Wiki in a perfect manner that is going to please everyone. Clashes do sometimes occur - mostly through misunderstandings. In my message to you I should have given a full explanation, and I apologise to you that I did not. So, what was my thinking for emptying Category:Non-alcoholic beer? Well, we have two categories for styles and types of beer, and we have a category for non-alcoholic beverages. So there are already three categories into which individual beers can be placed appropriately. Categories work best when they are neither too broad nor too narrow. We could have a category for each style of beer, but that would be too narrow. This article addresses that issue: Overcategorization. Also, for individual products the consensus is that they go into the article for the company that makes them, unless they are significant in themselves. Certainly, while both the product and the company are stubs it would make sense to keep them together. This  deals with that topic. We have been down this road several times and had a long discussion on it, from which this essay emerged: Notability (breweries). As I said to you earlier - it's always good to have fresh views on something. Nothing I have said here should suggest that your way is wrong and my way is right - merely to give you an explanation for why I proceeded the way I did. Regards SilkTork 09:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what you said about everything makes some sense. On the other hand, after reading the Overcategorization article, I'm not sure that having a separate category for each style of beer would necessarily violate any of the principles suggested on that page.  I realize that I'm unusual in my beer enthusiasm, but I could imagine a wikipedia where all but the most insignificant or esoteric beers had a separate article on them.  To not allow for this setup seems inconsistent with the rest of wikipedia--for example, in biology sections, many species have their own page, and the structure is set up to allow for and encourage individual pages for individual species.  Not having separate pages proves problematic...someone types in something, gets a redirect and is sent to a page that contains mostly information not relevant to the thing they were looking for.  Are not individual brews much like individual species?  And if we have them, should we not categorize them?  Cazort 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your enthusiasm. When I came to Wiki my intention was to list every brewery and beer in the world. What a great concept! But there are other places that do that - I listed a few of these sources on Portal:Beer a good while ago. One of the difficulties with beer style is that unlike species, there is no agreed and authoritative set of styles. There have been previous edit wars regarding that very issue. Some wiki beer editors are homebrewers who firmly believe that the BJCP homebrewing competition groupings are an offical set of absolute beer styles. There are other wiki beer editors (mainly from Europe) who point out that these guidelines do not relate accurately to European beers, and that beer traditions in Europe are less fixed and less style focused. Even on beer geek sites like RateBeer we have disputes and disagreements about which particular style a beer may be, and we even add, merge and subtract entire beer styles from the website - even though that involves a lot of work. Beer styles are a contentious issue! We do have Wiki articles and categories on beer styles and beer types, and these articles move forward slowly and carefully. Individual beers can be linked to these articles via interwiki linking, such as "XXX Premium is a pale lager", "YYY Dark is a stout", etc. That seems useful and informative - but even that is problematic as editors attach various names for beer styles in articles - some names don't exist as beer styles, but may be something the brewer puts on the bottle: Kentish Ale and Cornish Beer for example. Bear in mind that people do join Wiki with an enthusiasm for their own subject, and want to list every tower mast, postage stamp, minor comic character that they know about. Nothing wrong with that, but it just needs to be put in the right place and the right format so that Wiki doesn't become overwhelmed and messy, so that stuff is easy to find and navigate, and so that articles and categories are stable. Edit wars over articles are bad enough - edit wars over categories cause chaos. I understand, and we have articles on individual and widely recognisable (notable is the word!) styles. Can I ask what value you see in having a category for individual beer styles? Bear in mind that one of the things we have been doing on the Project has been to remove long lists of beers from beer style articles. Regards. SilkTork 12:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Swanky beer
Hi Fitzpatrickjm. I've just come upon your Swanky beer article. I'm interested in this beer - I have an interest in beer and beer styles. I've had a look for it on the internet and I can see that there is brewery in Australia which makes a beer branded Swanky, and I can find a recipe for home-brewing what appears to be a standard beer which goes under the name Swanky beer in Cornwall, but I don't see where it is a distinctive beer style. In what way does the Cornish Swanky beer differ from other home-brews? And how does the branded beer relate to the Cornish home-brew - other than using the same name? I'd really like this to be a rare and unique beer style, but I suspect it's just a local name variation, much like Scrumpy for cider. Would you be able to provide more information: User talk:SilkTork Regards SilkTork 11:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Swanky beer is a traditional Cornish beer, which is well known in Cornwall.

I believe it is a distinctive style of beer.

Swanky originally was brewed in Cornwall in the manner which I have described in the article.

In Australia, it has been brewed for the biennial Kernewek Lowender Cornish Festival in South Australia for many years. Various brewers have made the beer over the years. The Swanky for the 2005 and 2007 festivals was brewed by Copper Coast Wines.

Since it was originally home brewed, I suspect that there was a significant amount of variation between the recipes of individual brewers, as well as between individual batches of brews!

Also, I suspect that the Swanky style may have been overlooked in categorising the major beer styles, since it comes from one regional area in the UK. Most likely, it is properly categorised as a regional style of ale.

Swanky definitely is a distinct style of beer, rather than merely being a "brand" name or a local regional term for beer or ale.

I hope these comments are helpful. If you find out any more information, I would be delighted if you could share it!

Regards

Fitzpatrickjm 11:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. My own quick researches turned up this recipe:

"Swanky was always made by the Cornish about 6 weeks before Xmas and was ready for drinking only the cork was forced out of the bottle. Here's the recipe Boil five gallons of water and add 8 oz hops, 4lb brown sugar, 8oz ground ginger, 4 oz raisins and an ounce of salt. Boil for 45 minutes, then empty into a vessel and let stand until nearly cold. Then add two tablespoons of fresh yeast and allow to stand for 15-18 hours. Strain off the liguor and allow it to stand for at least 24 hours before bottling, making sure the bottles are clean and dry. Into each bottle put one fresh raisin (to prime the swanky) - then fill and cork, making sure that each cork is securely tied down. Swanky is a great "worker" so leave enough room for its head to form. It is ready for drinking when the head is about to force the cork out of the bottle.

If I hear that there are minor mystery explosions over the Cornish world I will know that you are brewing so I'll expect an invite to taste.

Regards from Cornish country 'down under' Jan"

Which alarms me because there is no mention of malt or cereal which would be needed for a beer. Was this a soft drink or something like a root-beer? Or perhaps some other alcoholic beverage? Do you have any other sources for the Cornish origins for Swanky? Regards SilkTork 11:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just put an unreferenced tag on the article because the only one I can find does not support the article, but contradicts it. Perhaps someone else can help out? Regards SilkTork 11:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have previously seen the Swanky recipe you have quoted. Since Swanky was home brewed, there were a large number of recipes, with differing ingredients.

The Swanky produced and served at the Kernewek Lowender Cornish Festival definitely is an ale style, and it has been produced for the Festival by a variety of brewers, most recently by Copper Coast Wines.

Before drawing your conclusion, I suggest you consider the above information.

Fitzpatrickjm 08:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have borne that in mind all along. My thinking has been: Wow! A rare beer style I've not heard of. Let's check it out. I check it out and find a brand of pale ale produced by Copper Coast Wines with the name Swanky beer, and I find mentions by Australians with Cornish ancestry of memories of a home brew they called Swanky, upon which the name of Copper Coast Wines beer is based. I have, as yet, not found any reliable evidence for the existence of a unique beer style. Do you have any reliable evidence? If not, then I suggest we'll have to rethink the article. I am disappointed that Swanky is not a rare beer style - but what can you do, eh? Regards. SilkTork 08:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the product Swanky is redirected to the company Copper Coast Wines, and the section is rewritten to show that it is a beer produced by Copper Coast Wines which uses the name of a Cornish homebrew. There is no evidence I can find which would support it as being based on a type of style of beer. SilkTork 15:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is a very wise idea. Swanky has been brewed in South Australia for the biennial Cornish Festival by a variety of South Australian commercial brewers over the years. The first festival was held in 1973, and on that occasion, the Swanky was brewed by Coopers Brewery. I have added a link to the Swanky article regarding the South Australian State Library's copy of the label for the Swanky produced by Coopers in that year.

Also, I suspect that Cornish persons would be unhappy if someone tried to say that Swanky is a proprietary product produced by a South Australian company. The Swanky article has been included in the Cornwall Wikiproject.

My view is that the articles stand as they are. As contributors undertake further research, I feel sure that further information will be added to the Swanky article.

I am most surprised you were unable to find any evidence regarding Swanky being a style of beer! May I suggest you visit the biennial Kernewek Lowender in South Australia's Copper Coast, where you will find ample evidence!!

If they are amalgamated in the way you suggest, then I am concerned there is a risk that a false impression will be created.

I hope these comments are helpful.

Regards

Fitzpatrickjm 07:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. As we are unable to come to an agreement between ourselves, I'm putting the article forward for discussion. SilkTork 22:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Question... [Other than the one I'm just about to ask]
Hi friend, are you around? Scar ian Talk  09:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes. Do you have a question about Hebridean Brewing Company? I see you've been doing some good work there.  SilkTork  *** SilkyTalk  21:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers, bud. Yeah that's what it's about :-D - I've spent the past three days being obsessed with making it good. Still quite a bit of work left on it. My question was about pictures from the company, I noticed you uploaded their logo. I was wondering if you think that I could upload the other logo's of their beers without any worries from picture licensing or anything silly like that? I've already uploaded the Berserker picture logo using the exact same licensing as yours. But anyway, any advice would be much appreciated, pictures aren't my strong point. Thanks again. Scar ian  Talk  06:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Rules regarding images have tightened up since I uploaded the Hebridean logo, and it wouldn't stand now because it doesn't have an explanation of why the logo is considered fair use. For any logos you wish to upload you'd need something like this in addition to the current tag:

Fair use in Hebridean Brewing Company
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) It illustrates an educational article about the entity that the logo represents.
 * 2) The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
 * 3) It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods.
 * 4) The logo is not used in such a way that a reader would be confused into believing that the article is written or authorized by the owner of the logo.
 * 5) It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

I hope that helps. Regards  SilkTork  *** SilkyTalk  07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hebridean Brewing Company
Yeah, sorry forgot to remove it! Scar ian Talk  17:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool.  SilkTork  *** SilkyTalk  17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the shiny! I appreciate that :-) - Ah, yes... I've been pulled up about the whole minor edit check box thing before by a different user. I thought he was just being incredibly nit-picky so I ignored him. Apologies! I have been following what you've told me to ever since. Cheers again and take care! Scar ian  Talk  23:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

James Squire
Hey SilkTork, I looking to you for a bit of direction. I have posed a question to Goink about why all the dates were changed to hyperlinks. I was under the belief, that unless the link clarified or had relevance to the article then so be it, but I feel they are meaningless alterations done to the page. Am I right or am I off the mark with this theory? Thanks -- Macr237 04:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:South Australian food and drink
You might want to pop over there if you have a mo! Your redirect was undone. Pedro | Chat  09:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pedro.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Heineken International
Hi. I was just wondering why you moved the company infobox in Heineken International further down the article. Top right seems to be the de facto location for this in company articles. Regards, Gr1st 21:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I thought I'd put in an edit summary linking to the guideline: Infobox_templates, but I sometimes forget! The relevant clause is No 2: "Insert in the main body of articles - either after the intro or in the most appropriate section. Consider putting in the top right only in the most compelling of cases." Regards  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

World Beer Cup
Thanks very much for your kind words. I don't do many edits, but when I do a wikipedia search for something and can't find it, I'll create it myself. I still have to finish adding all the city and brewery links though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhinz (talk • contribs) 02:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lion Nathan
Comment: Nice picture, but it's out of character with the format of the rest of the page. i.e. It stands out like all those other proverbially non-matching things. (The least offensive example I can think of is: "It stands out like tits on a bull".) Pdfpdf 12:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. How did you come to be knowledgeable about New Zealand beers? P.P.S. Changed my mind. I like your change. How do we get everyone else to add their nice pictures? Pdfpdf 13:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I've tidied up that section a little more.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 08:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a bit better. What do you think of the idea of changing the picture from left-justified to right-justified? (That's a polite way of me saying, "I think it looks better with the picture right-justified".) Cheers, Pdfpdf 11:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the info on spell checkers - most appreciated. Pdfpdf 11:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm easy on image location, as long as it follows Wiki guidelines. Guide_to_layout indicates that images can either be located all on the right, or alternated between left and right. The general tendency on articles, and the one I follow, is for the alternating method - it tends to be more aesthetically pleasing, though more problematic to maintain. The straight down the right side method tends to be used by people who just want to add images to an article without much thought. The straight down the right hand side method tends to encourage others to add images!

Well there you go. (I had wrongly assumed that people put images where they fit and where they look best.) As "they" say: "You learn something new every day". Thanks for that. Pdfpdf 11:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Spell checkers. Cool. I felt you needed a little more guidance than you had been given. I did discover WikEd on that link, which I'm currently trying - not as a spell checker, but as an additional Wiki editing tool. It's taking a little getting used to!  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 11:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your feelings were (are) correct. It's taking a little getting used to! I'd be interested to hear what you eventually conclude about it. Cheers, Pdfpdf 11:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

beer
You wrote: "I was looking for a guideline" Did you find a guideline to delete it? The guideline is that unless it is a silly vandalism you have to vote for deletion. Participation in election is claim for notability. YOu cannot just walk from a street ans say: I want to be elected. Quite a few people had to say a word for you, and you have to make some kind of splash to make thiem to do so. You cannot do it only with you buddies and family friends. In other words, you have to show yourself and be noticed. This thng is called "notability". See the words? "noticed"<-> "notability". Of course, there is a different kind of notability. Notability in yor high school does not warrant a wikipedia artice, but notability on national level (elections) most surely does. If you disagree with me, you are welcome to nominate this article for deletion. I will crtainly not lose my sleep if this article will be deleted, but I really doubt it will. `'Míkka 19:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Mikka. Thanks for coming for a chat. The guidelines for prodding an article are here: Proposed deletion - but you almost certainly know that. What I was looking for is a notability guideline, either here or here or here or elsewhere which supports your comment that "even one election is a verifiable historical event". I've just been involved in overhauling WP:BIO, and under politician we have the notability criteria as: "Has held an international, national or regional office...[is a] Member or former member of a national, state or provincial legislatures.... Being an elected local official by itself does not ensure inclusion in a list or general article." We do not have notability extending to people who merely stood for office. Now, if you have found some notability criteria on Wiki which says that is the case, I'd be pleased to consider it for inclusion in the Bio guideline. Your personal views on the matter are interesting, but - as you know - Wiki operates by agreed consensus (even if as individual editors we do not always agree with the consensus!), rather than maverick individuals. As a point of interest for you - the rules for standing for election vary from country to country, but are usually fairly simple. There must be some money deposited which is lost if the candidate fails to get a certain percentage of votes, and often that is all that is required to stand. The amount of deposit has increased over the years in order to prevent too many silly candidates standing - but there will always be someone daft enough to waste a £1,000 on getting their name in the papers, or their face on TV.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk  22:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. there is nothing unusual that we may disagree here. I myself nominate for deltion various things that other people want to keep and I have had quite a few heated discussions, but it is not big deal after all, it will not lead to a catastrophe in the universe nor even in a Jerktown, Ohio. Chers, `'Míkka 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with disagreements. As you say, there are often differences of opinion - even among the best of friends. I do, however, have a personal dislike of reverts. And Wiki guidelines support my feeling: WP:REVERT. I am not a vandal and dislike being treated like one. If an editor feels that someone has made a mistake so serious as to warrant a revert, it's considered to be in the interests of good relations (or Etiquette) to drop a note on their talk page asking for clarification first. I am aware that you are an admin, so forgive me for pointing out policies and guidelines that you may be familiar with. However, there are many guidelines - and they change so often, and we all work in different areas of Wiki, so it's easy to not be aware of all current consensus. I have certainly trod on toes now and again!  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 22:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You recent work with oppression is what I understand to be a corect merging: same subject, different facets for which there is just not enough text to keep in separate pages. Besides, keeping them separately is not good for overall understanding of the subject. The "main" article really must have these aspect covered, but then there is nothing left for separate "child" articles, only repetition. A separate article makes sense only is its text is considerably larger than a summary that must be present in the main article. The relevant guidelines are WP:FORK and Summary style (I guess you already know them, being major ones, but just in case...). `'Míkka 19:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I think we are much alike. It's possible to disagree with one (or more) action of an individual, yet still like and respect the person. I like people with character, and you seem to have character! Warm regards  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 22:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Birra Moretti

 * Hey, got your message about Birra Moretti. While I appreciate you working on these articles, I do not agree with merging these.  These are historical companies that were purchased, not simple brand recently invented.  I think you misinterpret the criteria some.  We don't put Volvo just as a footnote under Ford Motor Company, nor Saab as a section of General Motors.  They are famous and well known companies.  In the US Birra Moretti and Birra Peroni are the two most well known Italian beer companies, and growing in popularity.  Making them a small section in Heineken Brands just doesn't fit reality, and also takes articles that can be developed into interesting contributions -- and just turning them into boring footnotes. regards, Icsunonove 21:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Boring"! Ouch! I've replied in detail on the talkpage. Thanks for the heads up. Regards  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 22:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Category:Beer and breweries in the Middle East
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Beer and breweries in the Middle East, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Beer and breweries in the Middle East is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Beer and breweries in the Middle East, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Lion Nathan, West End and SA Brewing
Hi, I'm not particularly happy with what you've done with the Lion Nathan & West End pages. In no particular order: As I said, I'm not particularly happy with what you've done. I can't see how it's an improvement, it doesn't seem to add any value, and it deletes an amount of useful information. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence used to say it's a publicly listed Australian company 46% owned by Kirin. The removal of the "46% owned by Kirin" implies that it's an Australian controlled company, which is misleading and inaccurate. Maybe the original sentence was clumsy and needed rewording, but it was neither misleading nor inaccurate.
 * You removed the reference to Lion Nathan's aggressive acquisition strategy and activity. Why?
 * You added a section on Breweries. Good. But you only put one brewery in there. Which are the other eight? As a minimum, the names of the other breweries should be listed.
 * You took a page titled "West End Draught" (an article about one label of one brand), copied only some of it into a section called "SA Brewing Co." (an entity that no longer exists, and which brewed a number of labels for that brand, AND ALSO brewed a number of other brands, each with a number of labels, yet you make no mention either of the other brands or of the other labels produced by those brands), and you ignored the rest of the information on that page, and then effectively deleted that page by turning it into a redirect page. Why?
 * You mix in information about ONE label with information about the brand.


 * Thanks for bringing your concerns here first. Hopefully we can together reach a consensus on the best way forward. I think you raise some reasonable points. I'll address them in the order you raise them.
 * The 46% ownership was mentioned twice in the original lead section, so one mention needed cutting. Even though only one edit is seen, I did play around with placing the 46% statement in various different places in the lead section, and felt that having it in the second paragraph was giving the information suitable prominence while allowing for a certain readability of the opening sentence.
 * I condensed material which been tagged as unsourced, and which read as being contentious, hostile and potentially POV into a single statement "Lion Nathan and Foster's Group together control 95% of the Australian beer market" and moved that into the History section. I left it tagged as unsourced as I didn't have the time to search for a source. It would be appropriate to include suitably referenced material on Lion Nathan's acquisition strategy, though care would need to be taken with the use of language to avoid the appearance of pushing a point of view. Words such as "aggressive" would best come as a quote from a reliable source rather than a Wiki editor, and if possible balanced with a counter-view. The intention is to present a neutral and balanced viewpoint of the brewery (no matter our own personal views).
 * I agree that only one brewery is mention so far. It was my intention to add the others if nobody else had done it by the time I next came upon the article. I see myself as but one of many editors putting my small brick in the wall. Though I agree it would be better to put in a whole section, I'd rather put in one brick in and move on, than pass on by without doing anything.
 * West End Draughtand South Australian Brewing Company. This relates to my response above in that it is all a work in progress. But to expand: Though South Australian Brewing Company was bought by LN in 1993, it still operates a brewery by that name - look at this and click on the red dot placed on Adelaide, and also check out this. Also, if you look at the material in the merged West End Draught article, you'll see I have kept almost everything. The merge was done under the WP:Product guideline.
 * I've had another look at the material that I removed from the article - I paste it here in its entirety:
 * ''After an aggressive period of acquisition of smaller breweries in the 1980s and 1990s, they now operate in a virtual duopoly in the Australian beer market, "competing" against Carlton & United Beverages (CUB, now owned by the Foster's Group, producers of Foster's Lager, Victoria Bitter and many other "popular" Australian beers). Together the two companies control 95% of the market share. This has been widely cited by Australian beer aficionados as the primary reason for the comparatively poor quality of mainstream domestic beers. However, in recent years, smaller brewers
 * (like Coopers and Cascade)
 * have been increasing market share at the expense of the duopoly.''
 * My feeling is that
 * Carlton & United Beverages (CUB, now owned by the Foster's Group, producers of Foster's Lager, Victoria Bitter and many other "popular" Australian beers).
 * could be reduced to Foster's Group.
 * That
 * This has been widely cited by Australian beer aficionados as the primary reason for the comparatively poor quality of mainstream domestic beers.
 * contains WP:Weasel words, is unsourced, and contentious. And
 * However, in recent years, smaller brewers (like Coopers and Cascade have been increasing market share at the expense of the duopoly. (Note, however, that Cascade is now owned by the Foster's Group, and Coopers have been the subject of intense takeover "desire" by Lion Nathan, presumably because of their success in increasing market share.)
 * is a piece of unsourced POV WP:OR, and even if well sourced would be better used in the Australian beer article as it is a general statement about Australian beer rather than directly about LN. I still feel that condensing that material into the neutral Lion Nathan and Foster's Group together control 95% of the Australian beer market.[citation needed] is an appropriate move.
 * I hope all this gives you the appropriate background into my thinking. And thanks for reminding me to add the other breweries to the article. Regards  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 12:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for such a useful reply. Yes, in the past I, too, have employed the strategy of hoping someone would help - with mixed success! Also, I, too, like to see both sides of the discussion in the same place; unless you prefer otherwise, I'll reply here on your talk page. I'm afraid I've a busy non-wiki day ahead of me today, so it may be a little while till I reply. As a general point, yes, the unattributed and/or unreferenced statements that sound like POV do need to be restated with supporting evidence. (In fact, certain sub-sections probably need to be rewritten!) And although it's POV that I don't like LN's aggressive acquisition strategy, it is fact that they have had one, and I'll need to find a better way of stating it! Thanks again for your efforts in explaining your rationale. Best Wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

LN, SABrew, etc. - reply (at last)
I apologise for it being more than "a little while till I reply".
 * The 46% ownership was mentioned twice ...  - True. I agree with your logic, but not the result. Perhaps the opening sentence could/should say "LN is a Japanese controlled Australasian ... company"? Your thoughts?


 * I took a look at WikiProject Companies/Guidelines and Companies, corporations and economic information, but found nothing helpful there. I take your point that information about large shareholders should be present in a company article. Even though 46% doesn't constitute "control", and I see references to Lion Nathan being an Australian company, I also see references to the statement that Lion Nathan is "Japanese controlled". We can place information or statements that can be attributed to a reliable source, and NZ Herald is such a source. So I have now put that in, along with the source.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 13:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I condensed material ...  - Yes, various "assertions" do need supporting references. Yes, we do want NPOV. But, if it is (verifiable) fact that they have done something undesirable, is it possible to present that without it sounding like it's POV?  (For example, it's hard to present the facts on James Hardy's move out of Australia without it sounding like they're trying to avoid their obligations.)


 * Yes. The notion of POV is about being neutral, not about withholding negative material. The comment that a company has expanded is neutral. Implying that the expansion is either good or bad by the way the information is presented is POV. John is 6ft 1 inches high is neutral - John towers above people with his over-6ft height is POV. If there has been a verifiable protest, such as the Lewes Arms controversy, that could be mentioned. Take a look at that article - we had to make sure it was well sourced and written up in a neutral manner. I think there may be one or two questionable statements in there, but on the whole I think that is a reasonable example of how to present the sort of information you are talking about.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk  13:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that ...  - That sounds like a reasonable strategy to me.
 * Re: SA Brewing. Really, there should be a section on the history of SA Brewing Co / SA Brewing Holdings / Southcorp / etc. Maybe someone else will write it? Maybe I'll write it. (Both are nice thoughts, but unlikely.)


 * I agree. If someone writes up a decent, well sourced history of SA then WP:PRODUCT would apply and SA could be broken out in summary style.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 13:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Similarly, mention of CUB shouldn't completely disappear; a history section there is probably a good idea. (That one I couldn't write - I've never had much interest in the history of Victorian beer.) Giving the topic a bit more thought, it's probably a good idea to have histories of all the brewers / breweries.


 * I disagree here. A history of Bud doesn't need a history of Coors or Pabst - though all three should be discussed in American beer. Placing LN against Fosters in the marketplace should be enough, though if you feel there is an interesting and well sourced history of competition between the two companies then that could be inserted in the history section.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 13:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So, it would seem to me that we're not as far apart as I originally thought we might be. I think I need to start thinking about an SA Brewing article, (as distinct from a "West End" article.) What do you think? Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And I agree with most (but not quite all) of your last bullet. (For the record: Yes, they are Weasel words - not mine, but I hadn't decided how to "fix" them. Yes it is unsourced, but it isn't WP:OR (no matter how much I'd like credit for expressing the idea!)


 * Yes. It's possible to agree with what some material is saying, yet still remove it because it doesn't fit in with Wiki policy and guidelines. If someone said "Fosters tastes like dishwater", I would certainly agree - and just as certainly I would remove the statement.
 * I wish you luck expanding the SA material, and might drop by and help out now and again.
 * Warm regards!  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 13:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Brewing companies
Don't know what you were doing, but the categories you emptied were created as a result of a CfD discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Vegaswikian. I am putting the situation back to how it was, and asking for a wider discussion of the changes. The brewery cat structure came about through lengthy, wide-ranging and careful discussion and usage. The recent changes were brought about quite swiftly, involving very few people - usually just you and Hmains. I am aware that consensus can change, and that it would be worthwhile to revisit the present structure to see if it has flaws and how it can be improved. As such I am willing to work with both you and Hmains to see if the structure can be improved. I have set up a section on the Beer Project talk page in which these matters can be discussed: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer. If you'd like to talk through them, I'll alert the other members of the Project that an important discussion is taking place, and we can see what improvements we can make. Regards  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 08:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The changes I have been slowly working on are the result of a CfD discussion last month. The problem with the previous arrangement is that the existing category includes 3 very diverse items, buildings, companies and products.  The change just groups those and allows them to role up to the old parent.  It also respects the normal category structure where it is recognized that products are not normally associated with a state and have a geographic distribution.  The discussion was here. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. The discussion you point me to involves you and one other user in which the proposal was to split the category, and then part way through the idea was to change the name of the category, and the other user says: comment to administrator This nomination should be re-listed since we only had a concrete proposal two days ago. Hmains (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC). Unfortunately the closing admin closed immediately. However, it was decided that despite this the discussion followed procedure and should be kept. My point is that the discussion between you and Hmains was clearly not aware of the discussions that took place to create the category in the first place, the thinking behind it, and how it works. I refer you to this and this so you can get an idea of the amount of people involved, and the depth and quality of the discussion. As per procedure I can and have put the category back to how it was, and - because I am aware that consensus can change, and that it might be time to review the cats to see if something can be done to improve them, and take your ideas forward - I invited you and Hmains to a discussion here. It is clear that you and I are in disagreement, and we can go on reverting each other until the Earth crumbles, so it is better that we either resolve this between ourselves or take the discussion to another arena.


 * I hear what you are saying about the Beer and breweries category containing products, companies and buildings. That issue was raised a couple of times during the two grouped discussions I link you to above. It was seen as an issue more by those outside the Beer Project than those inside the Project. The feeling inside the Project was that company and product are closely related within beer discussions. Also, a problem we had then, and still have (though to a lesser extent) is the proliferation of stub articles on beer brands which were unrelated to the company. We didn't wish to encourage users to create more articles on beer brands - and through discussion drew up Notability (breweries) in which we outline a desire, following the guidelines of WP:Product, that products (in this case beers) are dealt with inside a company article rather than as a standalone, except in those cases where the product is notable enough to have their own article. Creating a cat specially for beer brands would encourage users to enter a stub on their favourite beer, counter to existing WP and Beer Project guidelines and consensus. At the moment we do create a brand subcat when needed, as with Category:Heineken brands, Category:InBev brands etc - and I see that you have created one with Category:Anheuser-Busch beer brands. This works well enough. I note that you have recently created Category:Beer brands. I can see the thinking behind this, though I do have some reservations related to what I have said above.
 * There are very few notable brewery buildings - the Guinness building, St. James's Gate Brewery, is one - and discussion on brewery buildings can comfortably be contained within discussion of the brewery company, along with the products, the founder, the staff, the advertising, etc. However, as with notable brewery staff/founders, notable advertising, etc, there could be another cat to hold articles which deal specifically with brewery buildings. Having such a cat doesn't imply that Beer and breweries by region should be deleted - indeed a Brewery buildings cat could run alongside the existing cats.
 * If you look closely at what you achieved with deleting Beer and breweries by region with Beer and breweries by country, you simply renamed the cat and missed out two useful levels. The result was that you had Beer and breweries in Asia, Beer and breweries in Africa, Beer and breweries in multi-regions, etc as subcats of Beer and breweries by country, which was a little inelegant to say the least!
 * Your discussion came to a swift conclusion that "Categorization by county should be sufficient" without giving reasons. You are aware that categories by region is an accepted categorisation system? And if you are to overturn a widely used, long standing and consensually created cat that "should be sufficient" is not quite a valid enough argument! Best wishes, and I look forward to your responses.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 09:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The categorization process has been moving away from using areas for categorizations by region to countries in most cases. Part of the reason for this is that most categories roll up by country anyway.  I'll look at the discussion that you mentioned.  While there may not have been many participants in the discussion, this is normal on CfD.  In many cases there are only one or two, especially when the suggestion is following current consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By countries is usually fine, though there are a number of things for which by region is better suited - fish for example don't live in countries. The By region cat is useful as it is more flexible. By country on its own can become unwieldy and overpopulated, so its useful to have By region and Category:Categories by continent - and these can run alongside By country if needed. Though I prefer when looking for sport in Europe to use Category:Sport in Europe, than to find the European countries in Category:Sports by country! It's each to their own Vegas, and the cat system on Wiki can and does embrace more than one way of sorting articles. There is no need to eliminate cats above By country - indeed that sounds quite destructive. Where has this been happening?  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 19:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)