Talk:BeerXML/Archive 1

Archive 1

Links to disambiguation pages

All wiki links now point to the specific wiki page that is appropriate, therefore I request that the tag is removed. The reason for this was the constant attempts by overzealous users to delete the page for spurious reasons which put me under some pressure. If this could happen quickly it would really help and we can get back to debating whether the page should be deleted - again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrivateWiddle (talk • contribs) 02:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A third attempt to delete

A third delete marker in less than 24 hours since the creation of the page. How can someone who has no knowledge of the topic assess the notability or otherwise of this data standard?

Aggressive and unnecessary use of delete markers

Per WP:TALK; article is already at AfD

After two run-ins with aggressive deleters; let us be clear that this article describes a data exchange format, NOT a product. Another attempt to delete this work wrongfully will result in a vandalism complaint. One of these individuals had the decency to apologise. As a matter of policy those who place delete markers on pages should at the very least have some knowledge of the topic or even have read the page. The one who apologised was correct in his initial assessment of the "article". My guess is he withdrew his nomination in the face of your belligerent response. Deb (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC) No, he apologised for the reason he said he did. Namely he thought the article was about a commercial product, whereas if he had read the first line, it is plain the article is about an a free and open standard for data interchange. It is no more a product than XML, its parent is. Quite simply put, a speedy delete marker was put on the article mistakenly. Notability is certainly up for debate and is a matter of opinion. Notability however does not mean articles about things that you personally have heard of and find interesting. BeerXML is an emerging standard that is used by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people all over the world every day. That may not make it notable, but in order to judge that you should have a rudimentary understanding of the topic. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC) You seem to have a short and highly selective memory - let me refresh it. His exact words were "not really an advertisement". At no time did he say he had thought it was a commercial product. Anything can be promoted - a product or a person, commercial or free. The speedy delete marker was put on the original version of the article because it was written in a promotional tone. You then changed the article so that it was no longer promotional, but you did not attempt to show notability and therefore the article was quite reasonably nominated for deletion by another user. Wikipedia:Notability is not simply a matter of opinion, it is a matter of consensus, with guidelines having been created by the community for this purpose. If you have evidence for your statement that "hundreds of thousands of people all over the world" use the format every day, then all you have to do is produce it. As yet you have been unable to do this. Deb (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC) On the deletion page you said that numbers don't matter and here you are saying that I have to provide evidence. Which is it? I said 'tens if not hundreds' not 'hundreds' so who is being selective? I did not change the tone at all, the tone and content are exactly the same. It was never promotional in tone to begin with. The first communication I got on my talk page said: 'It very obviously focuses on the positive features of the product and therefore I've deleted it.' 1) That is simply untrue, the tone was descriptive and neutral 2) Even if it were true, the Wikipedia policy at G11 very clearly says that this is innappropriate behaviour on your part and that if the tone is overtly promotional then a rewrite to NPOV is the correct option and that deletion is not the way to go. You ignored that and deleted the article. A data standard does not have positive and negative aspects; it simply exists as a standard or it does not. The language I adopted was identical in every way to the language and tone at the XML and HTML articles. What actual phrases did I use that are unnacceptable? By your standards both of those articles should also be deleted. It is quite obvious that you have had it in for this article since you were caught out wrongly deleting it and have therefore made it your mission to get it scrubbed. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC) It's you who have been "caught out", as you put it. Throughout this dispute you have misrepresented the facts. You know full well that I had absolutely nothing to do with the second delete nomination - though I do think it was a wise move - but you are choosing to try to make yourself appear a victim when in fact all that has happened is that your article has not met the acceptance criteria. Deb (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC) I imagine he's talking about me. I have been ignoring personal attacks ('deranged') and disingenuous misrepresentation of 'notability' and 'promotional.' Devils In Skirts? More like, a bit of a Khyber! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Can you point to a single phrase in the original artcle or any of the revisions that is 'promotional' as defined in the deletion criteria? One will do. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Here is the original text: BeerXML is a free, fully defined XML data description standard designed for the exchange of beer brewing recipes and other brewing data. Tables of recipes as well as other records such as hop schedules and malt bills can be represented using BeerXML for use by brewing software. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=BeerXML&oldid=595002832 Please point to the specific phrase or phrases in it that are so 'promotional' that they warrant deletion. I'm obviously missing them so waiting to be corrected. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Again, disingenuity, requesting specific phrase or phrases. The only thing to 'promote' an article is its sources. Therefore: No, or poor sources = nothing to 'promote' it on WP = no notablity = deletion. Cheers. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC) This is mindbending. I was accused of promotional language that unduly promotes the positive aspects of the product. I correctly objected that the language is not promotional and is NPOV. You have completely misunderstood what I said again. So once again completely wrong. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by PrivateWiddle (talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Text of the deleted article

Per WP:TALK; article is already at AfD

This is what was actually written by Private Widdle and deleted by me: BeerXML is a free, fully defined XML data description designed for the exchange of beer brewing recipes and other brewing data. Tables of recipes as well as other records such as hops can be represented using BeerXML for use by brewing software. BeerXML will eventually allow for the open exchange of recipes between different beer brewing software packages. The optional 'Appendix A' to BeerXML adds tags for use in the display of brewing data using XML stylesheets or XML compatible report generator. As the tags in the appendix are for display only and may include rounded values and varying units, these appendix tags are intended for display and not for data import. Category:XML databases And this is how I explained the deletion to him on his talk page. Deb (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Exactly! You said: Hi. You're clearly an experienced contributor who should know the guidelines on Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm afraid I don't buy your argument that this is not a promotional article. It very obviously focuses on the positive features of the product and therefore I've deleted it. Deb (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Devils In Skirts! (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC) So (apart from the fact that its not a product) what positive features did I focus on? One will do. Not a product? To quote you: I was accused of promotional language that unduly promotes the positive aspects of the product. BTW, just to let you KIA, I'm afraid i'm gonna have to template you for your personal attack there. No offence. Cheers. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Wrong again. the user Deb said that not me. you are quoting the wrong person. Its obvious that you are doing this deliberately to provoke a response. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC) So now that you have templated my talk page for disagreeing with you, will either of you answer the question I've asked you three times, what specifically in the text that user Deb posted from the original article above is promotional or not NPOV? Devils In Skirts! (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Apologies, I was editing this encyclopaedia rather than entering into a match du slangue with you. As they might say in the Dordoigne. The point has already been (over-, I personally think) explained, by the deleting Admin, to you, and that should suffice. It's nothing personal; but how many times and different ways can one pointb out a total lack of notability?! Although I note you have added some refs- well done. Now the only question is whether they actually adhere to ...or not, as the case may be. Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you for agreeing that there is no issue of lack of neutrality or partizan promotion in the article and that the only point of debate is its notability. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Au contraire, Blackadder... I am merely suggesting that, previously, the only issue surrounding the article was that it was promotional; now, it has now managed the Double whammy by becoming both promotional and non-notable... Ciao! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC) I accept that notability is up for debate so if you would point out where its promotional I will gladly change the wording or even the content to satisfy you. Over to you. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Er... you've already done that, as I've explained several times. The question now is notability, which you have just agreed is debatable. Deb (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comparable Schemas

Per WP:TALK; article is already at AfD

I've been looking at the other XML Schemas that have Wikipedia pages; lists of which are at: List_of_XML_markup_languages and List_of_XML_schemas (candidates for merger). What is immediately apparent is the multiplicity of them and the wide variety of different uses such schemas are put to. Many (if not most) of the entities listed there have far fewer users than BeerXML and are even more narrow in their scope. It is notable that few, if any of the articles about them have had to go through this unpleasant birthing procedure. Needless to say, few of them are commercial products (although some have proprietary licences) and many of the articles have fewer citations and are less detailed. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Is BeerXML XML?

Is BeerXML an application of XML?

This seemingly stupid question isn't as clear-cut as it seems. If done properly, BeerXML would be a simple application of XML. It would use the XML standard to control the syntax and data model (OK, strictly it's XML Infoset for that) and the Beer schema defines structure, elements and properties on top of that.

In practice, there are a number of similar amateur-derived "markup languages" that are XML-like, but are defined in parallel to XML, rather than in a layered fashion on top of this. These are bad and as a technical decision, just don't do it. XML is complicated and well thought out – a quick hack version of it isn't likely to work as well. In particular, XML tools often fail to work with these near-XML languages, as there is some subtly hidden incompatibility. One of the worst of the lot BTW is XHTML!

BeerXML appears to be an instance of an intermediate group. It may or not be XML-based (that much is unclear), but for presumed reasons of "clarity" it repeats parts of the XML standard (the section on "special characters" is an obvious one). Is it merely duplicating the documentation here (and still being XML), or does it subtly change some of these apparent overlaps (and thus becomes near-XML)? Either way, it's a bad way to write the BeerXML spec; either a bad way or a very bad way. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Age of the standard?

Can someone please save me the trouble of researching it and tell me the simple timeline of this?

• When was the first draft version?
• When was the "current" 1.0 standard released?
• Is 1.0 the current and stable version, or is it still in flux?
• Do people use BeerXML 1.0, or is there localised standards drift and everyone does their own thing?

Looking at the style of the 1.0 standard, it looks like it was drafted around 2000?

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

BeerXML 2.0 schema proposal (2006) is interesting. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The current version is 1.0, I don't know if a revision to 1.0 will appear before 2 but I'm hoping for developments on the forum that I or another can report. Its considered stable, but there are gripes on that front.

Yes, its in daily use by the users of all the popular brewing software (both FOSS and commercial) eg Beersmith, Brewtarget, Qbrew et al. The only major package that does not support it directly is ProMash although conversion is available and used. It is supported by every brewing app for phones and tablets I have ever seen and by most if not all of the plethora of sharing sites. Each of the mentioned software packages has tens of thousands of registered users, as do sharing sites like the Beersmith Recipe Cloud, BrewToad, BrewGR & Malt.io. I believe that Qbrew and Brewtarget have more than 60,000 users between them but Brewtarget certainly has many more than this because of the impossibility of tracking all the users who have taken it from the Linux repos it is on. New websites and applications for it are popping up all the time. I will try to pin the dates down for version 1 draught version.

There don't appear to be any localised versions, everyone incorporating it in software or into their websites/apps/hardware seems to be singing from the same hymnsheet.

There are quite a few professional software engineers (including Brad Smith who was at NASA) involved and as users are now expecting to be able to transfer their work from their PC to their other devices and the web as a matter of course I am sure that the standard, whether in revision of 1 or the mooted version 2 will make strides towards a more rigourous definition. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... NASA involvement might explain why the 1.0 spec is such a mess. It does look like the work of someone more familiar with SGML than XML. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Expert Attention Marker

It would have been better form to discuss adding this marker on the talk page before adding it. User Deb, who added the tag did not give a reason for adding it and the marker says that one is preferable. If a reason isn't given in 5 days I would suggest removing it. I can't see the rationality in simultaneously arguing that the article should be deleted for lack of notability and also that it requires attention from experts on the subject. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that she isn't suggesting that it should be looked at by people who actually know what they're talking about, rather than the current state of affairs. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy for you to resort to personal insults. As far as the tag is concerned Template:Expert-subject gives this instruction for its use:

Important: When adding this template to an article, please state either inline or on the article's talk page the issue that you think an expert needs to address. Unexplained expert tags may be simply removed.

As far as 'the current state of affairs' is concerned, you are of course free to make well informed contributions to improve the content of the article. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

But, Private, I have made the best contribution so far: nominating it for deletion as lacking notability; I observe that that remains in statu quo. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact things have changed, user Andy Dingly has voted to keep the article and and user Deb has added a tag to seek help improving the article from experts on wikiprojects, although has not yet nominated the wikiproject(s) that help should be sought from. At this point. There are more than sufficient external and verifiable sources. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The tag issue is now resolved as the user who added it today has now removed it rather than give a reason for it or nominate a project as per the instructions at Template:Expert-subject which are quoted above. I'm sure the tag wasn't removed because I pointed out that it represents an admission that the article should not be deleted.

I was going to nominate the wikiportal Beer (WP:BEER) as that is where most brewing related expertise resides. But now that the user who has added the tag thinks the article is good enough to do without expert attention from there, we can count the issue has settled. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This is far better referenced than my article Altbier which is certainly of note to less people than BeerXML but its not up for removal, why this one and not that one? Inconsistant! Devils In Skirts! (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)