Talk:List of breweries in Illinois

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

Notability, and links[edit]

(1) The Wikipedia general notability guideline says, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." (Emphasis copied from the guideline.) So, the entries in this list do not need to be notable, only the topic of the list itself, breweries in Illinois, needs to be notable. I'm therefore restoring the entries that were recently removed with an edit summary of "remove non-notable". (2) The external links guideline says, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." Links from the text of the list to websites for breweries are linkspam, and so should be omitted. This is in contrast to footnotes with reliable, third-party references, which are or course appropriate. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a list may include non-notable entries, it doesn't say that it must. Furthermore, this guideline is overridden by WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:V which are both policies. Finally, there are no reliable sources included to support the entries. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The list of breweries in Illinois definitely does not fit any of the six categories listed at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As for WP:V, it would be better if the list had more reliable, third-party references than it does now, and I'm planning on adding more when I get the chance. But there are already some here, such as this one and this one. So, it's also not true that "there are no reliable sources included to support the entries." Related to this, if your read through the Verifiability guideline, you'll see that it's not necessary to substantiate every entry in the list with a third-part reference. Only contentious statements or ones likely to be challenged are actually required to be referenced. Keep in mind also that the entries in the list do not need to be notable, and therefore not all of them will be referenced anyway. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except if you read point six, you'd see, and I quote directly: "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". I'd say that fits this case exactly. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIRECTORY point 6 is, "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as 'people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y' or 'restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y'. Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." But "breweries in Illinois" is not a cross-categorization, it's just a categorization, like, for example, List of covered bridges in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it looks like all the covered bridges in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania are notable and have their own articles. I would be just as quick to delete unreferenced entries from that list as well. That's not a good example of whatever point you're trying to make. And, going back to WP:V, I am challenging their inclusion, so they need references. Otherwise they get removed. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This brings us back to the General Notability Guideline, as quoted above: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." Again, emphasis copied from the guideline. As for the point I'm trying to make, it's that no Wikipedia guideline supports removing any of the entries. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, because overriding Wikipedia policy does. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:V both mandate the removal of the entries. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, and I explained why not earlier in this talk section. So, it will be interesting to see what other editors think about all this. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this list is clearly within the guidelines for a list on Wikipedia. I also think that it would be better to not try to change all 50 states all at the same time without consensus and/or without discussion.

  • The General Notability Guideline says, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." (emphasis from WP:NOTE) I think the topic is notable. Brewing is a large business and growing at 20% a year in some markets. (See David Richey & Bart Watson, California Craft Brewing, Economic Impact Report, California Craft Brewers Association, 2013, 15 page.)
  • These lists do not violate any of the numbered sections of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. These lists are not sales catalogs, nor are they crosslinking two items, provide geographic organization of a certain class of non-durable good manufacturers.
  • No Wikipedia instruction pages "mandate the removal of the entries" as was stated above. WP:WHATISTOBEDONE clearly states the process for fixing entries. Deletion is not the first choice, nor is it policy.
  • Policy page WP:DPAFD reads: "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so." (emphasis mine)
  • By merging the lists into "Brewing in _(location)_" it is also very difficult to correlate if any entries have been lost in the move, e.g. Brewing in Vermont which IronGargoyle claimed [1] had retained all its entries, when it did not. I informed the user that the new information is incomplete.[2]

In conclusion, I think that these lists are within scope and should not be subject to deletion or excessive modification as has happened at Brewing in Vermont and other pages around the U.S. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ellin Beltz: This is not a deletion discussion. We are not discussing if this list should be kept or not. I'm not arguing any more that the list should be deleted. I'm just saying that the non-notable and unreferenced entries should be removed. This is not deletion, so I think you are presenting a misunderstanding of WP:WHATISTOBEDONE. I am going through a process of normal editing. That is that policy's FIRST CHOICE. Again, it clearly fit category 6 of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Finally, here is another policy which mandates removal of the entries: WP:LISTCOMPANY states that "If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group." IronGargoyle (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellin Beltz and I have both explained in detail why the unreferenced entries should not be removed from the list, and why they are not covered under category 6 of "not a directory". And I do think the General Notability Guideline is extremely clear in stating that entries in a list do not have to be notable, as long as the subject of the list itself is notable. You haven't really addressed our points, or offered logical reasons why we might not be right. You're just repeating what you said before. So, so far a majority of editors are opposed to removing any entries from the list. But this discussion just started yesterday, so hopefully more editors will be adding their own thoughts here. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With that being said, a list entry with a third-party reference is still better than a list entry without a third party reference. So, I've added some refs. I'm planning on adding more, as time allows. Other editors are encouraged to do the same, in this list or in other lists. IronGargoyle, you might want to give it a try yourself. It's actually pretty fun, and you'll be improving the articles instead of starting arguments about them. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're adding references to the list. While some policies are more generalized and vague, WP:LISTCOMPANY is the guideline that I think most specifically addresses the quandary we are in. It is clear and specific that corporate list entries need to be referenced. I haven't seen that point of mine addressed in your comments (unless your adding of the references is a tacit admission to this point). I'm trying to see your perspective, which is frustrating because your side of the argument still looks as illogical and poorly argued to me as mine apparently looks to you. I can see that I was wrong with many (but not all) of the deletion requests, but leaving this unreferenced material still just baffles me. I get that there are times when removing unreferenced material would damage a different type of article (mostly by damaging its comprehensibility), but this isn't one of those cases.
You suggest I add references instead of starting arguments. You started this argument discussion and not me (not that there's anything wrong with starting arguments discussions). I do find research fun (I've done quite a number of DYKs, and have always found the research interesting), but I'm not looking to make the many, many brewery articles it would need to fill the brewery lists with bluelinks (if most of the breweries were even notable, which I doubt). WP:LISTCOMPANY certainly says that lists can contain non-notable entries, but I don't think this one should. That's obviously an editorial decision, and one which is fine for us to disagree on. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No tacit admission is implied or intended. Unreferenced entries are allowed and should remain in the list. But by adding references, I'm improving the list, which is however already acceptable on Wikipedia without the references. But, I'm baffled by why you're still mentioning notability for the list entries. The General Notability Guideline could not be more clear on this point, the entries in a list, and the contents of an article, do not need to be notable -- only the general subject of the list or article needs to be notable. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only mention notability because you seem to be saying that all lists must allow non-notable material. Whether the list allows non-notable material is up to editorial discretion (e.g., as determined on the talk page). WP:LISTCOMPANY couldn't be more clear that list entries need to be referenced. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that anyone is refusing to add citations to these lists, what I see is people asking that the pages not be eliminated, but upgraded. I was surprised to find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut which bundles discussions on List of breweries in Iowa, List of breweries in Tennessee, List of breweries in Idaho, and List of breweries in New Mexico, as well as individual deletion discussions
in addition to pages being redirected which is essentially a merge without using the merge process to seek consensus. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy that citations are being added, as it is a requirement of WP:LISTCOMPANY. I'm not advocating that any of these are deleted anymore (although some are so short that they should probably be upmerged to List of breweries in the United States). IronGargoyle (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Planned breweries[edit]

I think it would be better to remove the "Planned breweries" section. As a general rule of thumb, on Wikipedia it's preferable not to document future events, because they might not actually happen. And with breweries, sometimes plans are announced but then things end up not working out. I'd be willing to bet money that the Lagunitas brewery and brewpub in Chicago are going to open soon, but why not wait until that happens and then include them in the article. So, I've deleted that section. That said, I'd be open to further discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who have contributed to this article in recent months. We don't want any Illinois breweries to be missing from the list. I would also request that no new breweries be added to the article until they are actually open for business. Most planned breweries do end up happening, but you never know for sure what's going to happen in the future. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, this article should only include breweries that have actually opened for business, since Wikipedia should not document future events. When it comes to breweries, the more the merrier, but let's wait to add any new ones until they're up and running. So, about this edit: Hailstorm Brewing is open for business, as it says in the reference. But BreakRoom Brewery's website says that it's "coming [in] Spring 2014". Imperial Oak Brewing's website likewise says that it's "scheduled to open in Spring 2014". The reference for Forbidden Root, a story written 11 days ago, talks about the neighborhood group supporting the plan to open a brewery, and a zoning change still being needed, so that one's definitely still in the planning stages. And then there's Transient Artisan Ales. They're brewing and selling beer, but not at their own brewery -- and this article is a list of breweries in Illinois. The reference says, "Transient is a gypsy operation, without a brew house of its own (hence the name), and for now Betts is using One Trick Pony's facility—an arrangement he acknowledges as odd." Maybe Transient should be moved to the "other beer companies" section of the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken out -- for now -- BreakRoom, Forbidden Root, and Imperial Oak, and I've moved Transient to the "Other beer companies" section. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I was mistaken, and Imperial Oak opened for business very recently, so I put it back in the Breweries list. And Forbidden Root has been in business since last year, contract brewing their beers. They don't have their own brewery yet, so I'm putting them into the "Other beer companies" section. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other beer companies[edit]

In the last few days, I've added seven entries to the "Other beer companies" section of the article. These are brewing companies that are based in Illinois and are currently selling their beer commercially, but they don't have their own breweries, so far anyway. In my opinion the "Other beer companies" section is a really good place to list these. The article is "List of breweries in Illinois", and they're not breweries, so they're not in the main "Breweries" list. But they are a significant and noteworthy part of the Illinois beer scene, so they should still be included in the article, and putting them in this other section is a good way to do it, I think. As always other editors are encouraged to give their opinions. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could possibly add a list of Breweries that are not originally from Illinois but have opened another Brewery in the Illinois area; most prominently, the opening of the 2nd Lagunitas Brewing Company in Chicago in 2014. -Gabbywhat (talk)

@Gabbywhat: If it's a brewery, and it's in Illinois, it should be in the main list, even if it didn't originate in Illinois. In fact, if you look at the main Breweries table you'll see that Lagunitas is already in there. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mudwater (et al) - there's something I'd like to point out... You say "if it's a brewery [...]", but note: cider (or perry) & mead are *not* brewed; they are only fermented, like wine. This could open a pretty big bag of issues, but I do wonder if, in the name of accuracy, they shouldn't be moved out to their own page, or at least section, with notes/links about the difference? Sake *is* brewed, though I'm not aware of any sake breweries in IL; but I see there is a CLOSED brewer of makgeolli, which could (should?) stay, but maybe could also be separated out. Alternatively, possibly entries in the table could be color coded to show which are brewed and which are only fermented? Anyway, just some thoughts from a craft beer (etc) enthusiast and Wikipedia user... [And this is all very confusing; the Wikipedia article about makgeolli references distilling, but I don't believe it *is* distilled -- if it were, it would likely have a different name (like how distilled wine is called brandy); the Wikipedia article about brewing specifies beer, but not sake, makgeolli, chicha...] 2602:306:3875:DEA9:4C74:F28C:667E:512F (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. Though splitting up the list could be tricky, because a producer might make both beer and cider -- for example, Eris. But, I've added an explanatory note to the top of the main list, here. Hopefully that will address this issue. — Mudwater (Talk) 18:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table formatting[edit]

Recently the main Breweries table was reformatted. The "location and other information" column was broken into three columns -- "location", "brewery opened", and "notes" -- and the columns were made sortable. Here are links to the before and after. I appreciate the effort that was put into this, but the table was better before, so I'm putting it back the way it was. The issue is that where a brewery is located, or when it opened, can be somewhat complicated, so this information is not really suited to sortable columns. Furthermore there are different variations on these complications. Some breweries started as contract brewers, then built their own brewery; others have opened multiple locations over time; others have different types of facilities (for example, a brewpub, and a brewery with a tap room) that opened in different locations at different times; and so on. This information can all best be explained to the reader in the brief prose, or bullet point type info, in the "location and other information column". It also makes sorting the columns considerably less helpful, because the location and year information is not singular for some of the breweries, nor does there seem to be any advantage to sorting some of the other columns such as "notes". Again, I think it's good that different editors are working on improving the article, and I understand the attraction of sortable tables, but in this case we need to focus on overall usability for our readers. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, the table has been made sortable, but this time without any changes to the "location and other information column". Sortable tables are cool, and all, but in this case I really think we're better off with a non-sortable table, for two reasons. (1) It's not that helpful to be able to sort any of the columns of this table, which is already in alphabetical order by brewery. There's not a big advantage to being able to sort by, for example, the "brewpub" column. (2) I think this will make it more tempting for someone to come along and change the "location and other information" column to have the locations first, but that would make things worse instead of better. While a lot of the entries do start with the location, plenty of them don't, because they have more interesting and useful information in the form of one or more sentences or sentence fragments. And I don't think it's that helpful to be able to sort on location, either. Please see my previous post, immediately above, for more on this subject. So, I'm going to go ahead and undo the change. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"P.S." Another reason that sorting by location would be not that great: Some of the breweries have locations in more than one town. But it doesn't make sense to list a brewery multiple times because of that. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on List of breweries in Illinois. 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) 05:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of breweries in Illinois. 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) 02:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_breweries_in_Illinois&oldid=1208214244"