Talk:Brewing in New Hampshire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Breweries[edit]

Reverting list of breweries in New Hampshire, see [[1]] for details. Suggest we be more specific about notability guidelines for breweries. Does a GABF or World Beer Cup medal count? Does GBBF honors count? What if they're listed in published beer guides? The list should stand until we have some consistent guidlines Akatie (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an issue of notability (although I would personally prefer that the WP:GNG standard be used). It fails WP:LISTCOMPANY because you don't have reliable, independent sources for the entries. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The New Hampshire State Liquor Commission's List of Licensees, which includes pending and expired, is the reliable, independent source that should meet WP:LISTCOMPANY and has been noted as a footnote for a while Akatie (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am SO glad that there is now an editing war going on on this page. Thank you IronGargoyle for causing this shit storm! This was a great page; now just sad.
I've forgotten the tag for getting an independent editorial review GustavChad do you remember?? Akatie (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By-the-way, I do not know who you are Akatie, but thank you for trying to keep this page, that I once loved to work on, as it was. I plan to create a new version of this page elsewhere. Would you like in on it? Forget about Wikipedia, let us move on to bigger and better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GustavChad (talk • contribs) 23:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As editing a Wikipedia page is not a "full-time" job, it may take time for some to get to edit this page. Can we dispense with the "no substantive attempts have been made to add references to these entries in the past several weeks" crap and let things be for a bit. Akatie, has done some fine work here, so let it be. GustavChad (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to find the removed entries in the page history once you find the references that they require. Only then should they be re-added. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this listed at the Third Opinion page, and though I'm a regular volunteer there, I'm not removing it from the list there because I don't want this to be an "official" 3O (though what I'm going to say may well invoke the Third Opinion Paradox). We have folks working at cross-purposes here: IronGargoyle is talking about bringing it up to true Wikipedia standards (which requires, per the verifiability policy that every assertion which is challenged or likely to be challenged to be supported by an inline source which meets Wikipedia's high levels of reliability; the state licensing list is not adequate for that purpose since entities can hold licenses but not be in operation). GustavChad is talking about taking the list outside of Wikipedia. Both of them may be right. IronGargoyle is right because it must be remembered that Wikipedia is a very serious encyclopedia with very high standards, not just a place to park information: the fact is that many things which are both Absolutely True and Vitally Important cannot be included in Wikipedia because of its standards. GustavChad is right that sometimes it is more useful to take pages outside of Wikipedia (let me recommend Wikia for that purpose) because useful information can be included in them that way which cannot be included in Wikipedia. I truly love Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and fully support its high standards, but I also recognize that people come here and become frustrated because they try to make it different from what it is and get sucked in by the fact that there is a lot of stuff here which shouldn't be here but which no one has yet gotten around to taking to task and removing. (I wrote the Wikipedia, bicycles, and wagons essay just about that issue.) There are great websites outside of Wikipedia which are chock-a-block full of wonderful information which cannot be in Wikipedia and I'm incredibly grateful to the people who create and maintain them, but I spend my time here trying to help to make Wikipedia the best place it can be and trying to make sure its high standards are upheld. Look, you pays your money and you takes your choice: If you're going to work at Wikipedia, you've got to color within the lines, but some artists make beautiful art even though they hate the lines. If that's what you want to try do do, more power to you and, again, let me recommend Wikia as a place which has a Wikipedia-like structure but there are few or no lines. We'd love to have you stay here and try to improve Wikipedia, but you've got to stay between the lines if you do. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion - This [2] seems like a good edit to me and per WP:BURDEN content that is challenged can be removed and it is the responsibility of the person who wants to put the content back in the article to provide reliable sources. Also the lead of this article needs to be changed as a stand alone "list" article needs to have the word 'list' (or similar) in its title per WP:LISTS.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Breweries[edit]

(quote section 3.4) "New Hampshire has a nano-brewery license[9] that allows a brewery to produce up to 2,000 bbl (34,000 l) a year at a reduced annual license fee"

Does lowercase 'l' mean litre? If so and I follow adequately-- perhaps the target should be section Barrel#Fluid barrel in the US and UK --then the threshold is 234,000 L(itre).

--P64 (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Brewing in New Hampshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brewing_in_New_Hampshire&oldid=1199375070"