Talk:Heineken brands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Beer, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Beer on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Beer Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

"Approximately 57557" That's an approximation? 212.140.139.225 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Merge Birra Moretti

The guidance on Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), specifically WP:PRODUCT is that the products and services of a company should be contained in an "article that deals with all of the company's products and services". As such I am proposing that Birra Moretti be merged into Heineken brands in the section Heineken brands#Birra Moretti. The Birra Moretti is small now that the football tournament, Birra Moretti Cup, has been removed. The information contained in the article can be contained in Heineken brands#Birra Moretti. If the section grows that will be the time to break out in summary style. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose There should and can be a separate Birra Moretti page. Especially considering that this brand has become quite popular in the US recently. For example, just as Volvo is a brand of Ford Motor Company, it is not listed as Ford Motor Company brands#Volvo or Ford Motor Company#Volvo. The biggest impression I got after seeing your initial modifications was that you only ended up taking rich articles and making them short and boring. Sorry to be blunt. :-) Icsunonove 20:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your point about taking "rich" articles and making them "boring". Is this a genuine comment or simply bad feeling? If it's a genuine comment that you feel I have deleted valid and valuable material I'd like to hear a fuller explanation so I can look again to see if you're right. If it's just bad feeling, all I can do is apologise that I've upset you in some way. That was not my intention. I'm looking to make Wiki a credible, readable and useful reference tool. I like to think I follow Wiki guidelines which are based on the consensus of experienced editors. If I take a course of action that someone points out is not Wiki policy I stop doing it. There are times when a course of action is borderline, and someone challenges it and there is a discussion to see how the action best fits existing guidelines, or if there is a need to create new ones. This may be one of those borderline cases. We are looking to see the best course of action to take based on existing guidelines. We disagree on the best course of action. That, to me, is all that is happening. "Short and boring" indeed! Ouch! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Lets keep it short and sweet. The guidelines, that I feel you have misinterpreted, certainly do not suggest that we make Volvo, Saab, Jaguar, Mazda, etc., etc. all redirects to subcategories of their respective parent companies. Where you would group brands would be taking something like Dell computers and then having their product lines/brands like Inspiron, Latitude, etc. in the overall Dell article. You'll notice that is actually the case of how they are organized, and I am concerned for your editorial safety if you try to start clumping them all together in one article. :-) You haven't offended me, but my personal opinion is simply that the original article was at least interesting and something that could be built upon -- where making a paragraph hidden inside a huge Heineken article is certainly boring (to me). A company like Moretti has a long an independent history; it isn't like Mountain Dew that was an invention of Pepsico, but by golly, that brand has a page too! :-) So please do review the examples I've made again about automobile marques, and also the Dell product lines, and then continue the debate. :-) regards, Icsunonove 06:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


I've removed the merge tag. It may be worth your while, however, reading the guidelines carefully. I know there are a lot of them and they can be difficult to absorb (I don't think anyone knows them all off by heart!), however you might be missing the essence of why I proposed the merge; and a cup of tea and a jolly good read of the guideline may assist you in understanding my thinking. Your argument about cars is covered by Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Notes, which indicates that certain cars have notability because they have had a book written about them: "All cars that have had Haynes Manuals written about them satisfy this criterion." If Birra Moretti had a book written about it we wouldn't be having this discussion. The guidelines, while open to interpretation in places, are quite clear that if a topic has been the subject of a book by a reliable publisher then the topic is notable. Our problem here is that the brewery Birra Moretti hasn't been, as far as we are aware, the subject of a book. The brand of beer may have, but we are not talking about the brand of beer, which you have to admit is no longer made at that plant anyway! It's also worth looking at this discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability (breweries) in which we went through questions as to what makes a brewery notable, and how we should approach the matter. Such topic notability guidelines are now being played down in favour of using as few as possible in case some of these topic guideline start to give conflicting advice. I understand your feelings. When I first arrived on Wiki I set about creating many articles on breweries! Now I am trying to set things up in order to keep the same information, but in a manner which is acceptable to the Wiki guidelines and policies and general consensus. Bear in mind that several articles on breweries have been deleted when they've been brought up on AfD. At the moment they rarely get called up. I'm keen that before someone looks too closely that we abide by Wiki policy! Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Żywiec Brewery

Oppose proposed merger of Żywiec Brewery with Heineken brands. While I don't mind merging the brand information, the Żywiec brewery article contains a history section, which does not belong to 'brands' and there is no reason to get rid of this information --Jotel 11:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC).

It's a valid point. Now we have to get together sources to satisfy WP:ORG#Primary_criterion. While the Żywiec brand may have some sources, does the Żywiec brewery? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just had a quick look, and there's not a lot of info on the web. There's an interesting document on a trade union dispute between Heineken and the Żywiec group, and there's stuff (of course) on Żywiec Porter (Jackson loved it!), but there's nothing solid on the brewery itself. I'll take a look at my books tonight. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There is one ref. so far. And there is more, books &c, all in Polish AFAIK. I'll add more sources later. --Jotel 12:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
A book, three articles from two different newspapers, a state archive collection - notable enough by now? --Jotel 17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You're doing well. It's unfortunate that three of the sources are in Polish. The guidelines do allow non-English language sources, though English is preferred. The English source you've got is the one that I mention above; it's not perfect for a notability source as the article is about the trade union dispute rather than the notability of the brewery itself. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
There also is a link to an English page of state archives (mentioned in ext. links, as it's not used to illustrate a specific point). The brewery is in Poland, so it's hardy surprising the vast majority of sources are in Polish. This doesn't make the article less notable. --Jotel 06:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as well. It seems a waste of time to merge all these articles, especially these are historical companies now part of Heineken. They are not simply recent brand inventions. Icsunonove 20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire of both of you to want to keep these articles as standalones. However, I would ask that you read through the guidelines WP:ORG and WP:N to see where the breweries meet the requirements. And also to bear in mind I am not suggesting we delete these breweries, merely move them into the context of the company of which they are a part. If there are substantial and interesting things to be be said about these breweries that also would be a good argument for keeping them as standalones, but currently there is not much to be said other than that they are brewing plants which make beer. However, I'm not here to make problems or upset anyone, so if you guys read the guidelines and still assert that you feel the breweries should be standalones I'll take down the merge tags - you currently have the consensus anyway! Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
"currently there is not much to be said other than that they are brewing plants which make beer". That's definitely not true for Żywiec brewery. --Jotel 06:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I do a Google-USA search on "Birra Moretti", taking out hits to wiki, and receive well over 350,000 hits. I guess it is a bit known (i.e., notable). :-) [1] Their new parent appears to believe it fit for Moretti to maintain their own website as well www.birramoretti.it. Anyway, I think you'll find a more rich history captured on Wikipedia if you simply allow the stand alone articles of historical marques to mature (or at least leave articles in place such as Dr Pepper, Mountain Dew, etc., etc.) Icsunonove 07:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Birra Moretti is also a beer! That makes a ghit count difficult. Ghits are not sources anyway. Please see my comments above on reading through the guidelines to get a handle on what is and what is not considered notable. Keep well SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LNPLCogo.jpg

Image:LNPLCogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AlAhramLogo.jpg

Image:AlAhramLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BrandLogoNl.gif

Image:BrandLogoNl.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)