User talk:Brownings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Pearl 2 Re: Your question on the Wiki Beer page 3 Help with City Box 4 Beer poll 5 Wikiproject North Carolina 6 Wikiproject Beer 7 Pearl Brewing Company 8 Image:Panoramic1910.JPG 9 SA Infobox

[edit] Pearl

Hey, no problem -- I thought you did a fantastic job, and saw an opportunity to do a little bit of very minor editing. You did a really great job on the article, and I'd love to see more. Feel free to drop me a line whenever you're working on something interesting, and I'll try to chip in -- but it looks like you really don't need any help!

Thanks for the kind words, and it's great to see new people editing the beer stuff! --Daniel11 03:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, a couple more things... I was considering adding a new layer of headings, and putting all the history under a broad "history" category, but decided not to since I figured you might be annoyed by that -- but I see you did the same. Good to know -- great minds think alike, and all ;) ... also, and this isn't very significant, I think the general Wikipedia thing is not to use all-caps for heading or subheadings. I'll leave that up to you, since I'm not really sure, but I haven't seen all-caps around much, so I kind of think that's official or unofficial policy around here. Hope this helps... --Daniel11 03:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your question on the Wiki Beer page

"Where can I find this sub-section at? There are two local brewers I'd like to add and eventually expand on." Go to the main WikiBeer page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer), and click on the seventh topic in the contents box (Articles in need of editing or creation). Even if you've started the pages, it's probably a good place to add stubs (the more visability, the better the article)... --(Mingus ah um 00:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Help with City Box

I'm trying to fix a link on the San Antonio link box, which is tagged in the article as {-{San Antonio}-} minus the dashes. Where can I find the actual box to update the link inside? I've tried searching on Template:San Antonio, but no luck. --Brownings 16:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you need to fix something in {{San Antonio}}, it should be there. What exactly needs fixing? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks must have been fat fingering something or missing it somehow. I need to change the link for Pearl Brewery from actually going to "Pearl Brewery" and instead go to "Pearl Brewing Company." Locals call it Pearl Brewery, but the Wikipedia page is under the Pearl Brewing Company. The page on Wiki for Pearl Brewery is actually a redirect to Pearl Brewing Company. Thanks for you help, it has been driving me nuts all morning. --Brownings 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you've already done it :) Glad I could help, somewhat... --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer poll

Hi! Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [1] SilkTork 12:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject North Carolina

In an effort to expand this project, I've requested a bot tag most of the articles under the Category:North Carolina. If you could, please look over this list User:Betacommand/North Carolina and remove any that should not get tagged with the Wikiproject North Carolina Template. Thanks Morphh 01:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Beer

Things have been very quiet for quite some time now on the beer project page and some of the main pages. Are you still active there? Do you know if anyone is? Thanks. Mikebe 11:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Where are you? According to what I see on my computer it must be no more than 07:00 there in the USA. Yes, I would like to chat, but I'm not sure how that works. Perhaps you could explain? Mikebe 12:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. There have been things going on almost "behind the scenes" and I thought you should know about it and also see if we could all do something about it.

As you know, I posted a message on the project talk page about "isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia" that you contributed some nice comments to. Basically, since this is an encyclopedia and not a home-brewing manual, I don't think having links to the BJCP style guidelines on every beer page is necessary or even useful. For example, here is a small sample from a BJCP style guide: "Rich German malt aroma (of Vienna and/or Munich malt). A light to moderate toasted malt aroma is often present. Clean lager aroma with no fruity esters or diacetyl. No hop aroma. Caramel aroma is inappropriate."

It seems to me that 99% of the people who look up beer in an encyclopedia would by frightened or confused by something like that. I don't know if you will agree with me, but I hope you will.

IAC, we had this discussion (there were 3 of us, I think) a month or so ago. It then turns out the Goethean, one of the biggest trouble-makers in the group, it seems, went quietly to an admin he knows, who it turned out is an even bigger trouble-maker than Goethean. This admin went through the beer articles putting back all the BJCP links I and another user (Patto1ro) had removed. He then told the other user (Patto1ro) that he and I were the same person and if he didn't close down one of the accounts, he would "take administrative action against you."

The other user is, IRL, Ron Pattinson, who is one of the most knowledgeable European beer experts I know. Ron is also a friend of mine IRL. To make a long story short, this admin (his user name is osgoodelawyer, btw) made this accusation on the basis that we both opened accounts within a few days of each other and we both were doing the same kind of edits (removing BJCP links). He then complained to another admin that we were "blatantly anti-American" (mostly, apparently, because of removing the BJCP links).

So, the other user has given up and left Wikipedia. He is the second expert I know who has left because of mistreatment by other editors/admins.

The situation is now that Goethean and Osgoodelawyer think they own the beer articles.

It seems to me that two people taking over the project without any vote or any discussion is just wrong. Secondly, it seems that more and more they are giving these pages an American-centric POV. For example, take a look at "Belgian Strong Dark Ale." As I understand it, this is a beer style that American home brewers need to make for competitions. I can assure you there is no such Belgian beer style, but, as long as home brewers use this as a competition category, I don't have a problem with it. However, writing an article about a home-brew competition style that is only for practice? And then give a Canadian beer and a Trappist Belgian beer as "examples" of this "style." I think there is something really wrong with this. It would be perfectly reasonable for someone reading this article to walk into a pub and ask for a beer in that style, which, of course, doesn't exist since it's only a competition style for home brewers.

But, it's not just Goethean and Osgoodelawyer. When I nominated it for deletion, no one agreed.

Personally, I'm ready to join Ron and leave. The actions of Goethean and his friend are so childish and nasty, that I see nothing to be gained by staying.

This is probably a lot more than you expected, but this is a lot of stuff that has been happening. What do you think of all this? Mikebe 14:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl Brewing Company

Hey Brownings, I just came across your article here (undoubtedly it can be called yours at the moment). You've done some absolutely spectacular work here, with so much detailed content. It looks like an article that could one day become featured, since you clearly have enough material for a fine article. I have a couple concerns, though.

The first is the lack of footnoted references. You have undoubtedly not written the article off the top of your head, as the extensive list of "references" shows, but footnotes are very sparse. I know it will be a grand undertaking to footnote this article, but it would improve it greatly, is really necessary for a "proper" article, and is absolutely necessary if you ever want to get it featured. I also see that all your references are online. Do you not have any paper sources that you're working from? Despite the less useful nature of a paper source online (in that one cannot click it and immediately see the original), such sources give added authority to an article.

A second concern is article length. You are no doubt aware that when you click to edit the article you get a notice that it is larger than the preferred size. In fact, it's almost twice the preferred size, which is highly undesirable for an article (it is unlikely that a reader will bother to finish it at that size, even if it is a very interesting read). I note that you seem to have much more to add as well, which would eventually bring the article up to mammoth-size. The usual solution to this is to split the article up into sub-articles with a summary section of each article in the main one. However, for an article of this type (on a single company, which isn't even really still in existence) sub-articles would generally not be considered independently viable (sub-topics wouldn't be considered notable enough to warrant their own articles). The only possible sub-article that I could envision being notable enough (and I'm not an expert on what people consider notable here, so it might not fly with others) would be a history article. However, since your article is already primarily history, it seems like it wouldn't be the best route to go. I hate to have to suggest this, and of course you do not have to take my suggestion, but I suggest that you pare down your article. Combine sections where possible and limit the content to only the most relevant parts of the brewery's history.

A final concern is the inclusion of "Indiana" Schmidt and the Lost Mural. I note that you have received permission to include the text, but I'm not entirely sure that is enough due to the combination of the restrictions the author requested and the nature of Wikipedia (anyone can edit any text, and the author expressly forbids her work from being edited). Since I am not an expert on copyright (on or off of Wikipedia) I direct you to WP:COPYREQ where hopefully someone will be able to tell you if Wikipedia allows such a use. I suspect the answer is in the negative, however.

After all that, I hope you don't feel that your article is under attack. My intent is the very opposite; your article has so much potential that I want to ensure that it complies with Wikipedia policy and guidelines so that it can't come under attack, is as well-referenced and constructed as possible, and is set on its way towards eventual featured article status. If there's anything further I can help with to that end, please don't hesitate to leave me a note. Again, I congratulate you on your great work. In fact, you deserve a barnstar. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed that Mikebe wrote you while I was composing the above message and made some complaints about me. Please take his accusations with a grain of salt. I certainly do not think I own beer articles. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a ton Oz for taking the time to comment on the Pearl page. It’s nice to have my work recognized, and I really appreciate the award. Pearl has grown out of a labor of love over the past year. I'm proud of a lot of the work, but I'm also aware that it could really use some help in a number of areas. While I've compiled most of this information from different sources and talking with ex-employees, I'm no expert at Wikipedia or some of the detailed rules that apply to articles that are more than simple stubs. Clipper471 has helped me a ton with his copyedits, but no one else has really jumped onboard like I had hoped. Over the past year I've talked with reps for both Pabst and Silver Ventures, and while they're very helpful and willing to provide photos, neither have jumped onto the site to added information. Of course come to think of it, that might be a good thing.

The footnotes are a problem that I'm trying to work on. Unfortunately it always seems on the end of an ever growing "to do" list. Hard copy documents when it comes to Pearl seem far and few between. Overall references broke up into the following segments: 10% hard copy information, 50% interviews I've done with Pearl people, and the remaining 40% from the on-line references you see at the bottom of the article. I really need to find the APA format for referencing an interview and start using it. The next section I plan on working on is “Pearl’s sweet tooth,” which some of the information came from two interviews. Before that section goes up, I’ll get the reference format down and at least include it in that section. As for the rest, I’ll have to come up with a plan of action and just tackle them one by one.

I’ll take a look to see what off the top can be moved over to its own page. I already have an individual page for the Texas Transportation Company, and can probably move the sections on “xXx” and the Buck Winn over to their own pages. I think I passed Wikipedia’s recommended length several months ago. I know where you’re coming from on the general reader’s attention level. They’d probably make it past the first couple of paragraphs then just skip down to the photos section. However, I am worried about an older set of former workers who might visit the page from Google or Yahoo!. While its one page, they’ll probably scroll down and read through at least some of the information, but if its broken up into several pages, I’m worried they might think what’s on the main page is all that’s there.

The article inside the Buck Winn section is a problem. I really wish I could just reference it, but it isn’t available in soft or hard form. The copy on Wikipedia is only the second “publishing” the article has ever seen. Other than a printing in the local society flyer in Wimberly, TX it hasn’t see a mass distribution. The author was very worried about someone chopping up her work and killing the flow of it. I think it’s a key part of the Buck Winn story, but how can I satisfy all parties and still use it?

Thanks again Oz for your comments. I appreciate it, and will take them into account as I write addition sections and correct those already in place. --Brownings 05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Panoramic1910.JPG

You note that this image is copyrighted but free use is allowed. I assume you mean the original image, and that this "picture of the picture" was taken by you. I have fixed it up so that the perspective is correct and the frame is gone: Image:PearlBrewingPanorama1910.jpg. With your permission I'll delete Image:Panoramic1910.JPG. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Oz. That's an awesome job on the photo. It looks a million times better than the original I took. As for the copyright, I took a WAG as to what to put. The original photo was from something similar to a press kit of the day. I figured the brewery kept the copyright, but had intended it for free use. Since I was taking a photo of a photo, I had no idea what arena that would even fall in. Rather than tagging it mine and putting it up on Commons, I figured it'd be best to error on the safe side, just in case (in case of what I have no idea). I posted up a question on one of the project pages a few months ago, but never heard anything, and the post has long since been buried. Go ahead and kill the original photo, or let me know how since I have no idea. I don't see the point in keeping it since your version is much better. Oh, and thanks for moving the two photos. I wanted to originally put them inside the text, but was unsure on breaking them off out of the "Images" sections. After seeing it, the page looks much better.

I saw your comment above about the overall article. I think you have a lot of good points. I'm strapped for time right now, but if I get the chance I'll sit down later to write up a proper response and try to answer some of your questions. Thanks though for the input and my first award, w00t!! --Brownings 16:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, I look forward to hearing from you when you have the time. I've also gone ahead and deleted the original image. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SA Infobox

Great job on the infobox revamp there, although I kinda jumped the gun and replaced the infobox already. Sorry about that.

Anyway, I love the new format! Dknights411 02:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)