User talk:TinyMark/Scotch Whisky

Undo:Bruichladdich

Hi TinyMark - I see you undid my revision to Port Charlotte (whisky). The principle that I was applying there is the same used in beer Dogfish Head, wine Penfolds, and other spirits Smirnoff- you talk about the producer, not the brand or product. For some reason this is inconsistently applied in the whisky world, e.g. Glenlivet vs Macallan. You'll also note the template at the bottom of the PC article is about distilleries, not about the whisky itself.

Hope that makes sense. I was an active user 2-3 years ago and in reading the whisky articles, I've come back to try and clean them up. If there is some larger principle at work here I'd be happy to work within it. Nestorius (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is no larger principle or wikiproject at present. However, the title of the article is "Port Charlotte (whisky)". And the name of the distillery is actually not that important—it belongs to Bruihladdich anyway (the producer). I have nothing against the change in itself, but the article should then be moved to "Port Charlotte (distillery)".

As far as I know, Bruichladdich already produce a whisky under the name Port Charlotte! Greetings TINY MARK 16:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this just proves that Bruichladdich is eminently confusing in their desire to be 'indie'. Their existing Port Charlotte whiskies (PC5, PC6 now) are made at their main distillery and thus should be under that article (I think... analagous to Springbank). It is uncertain whether this article was made for the new distillery or the existing whiskies; now it looks as if it is speaking of the new distillery and it should be moved.

However, as you can see on Wanderer57's talk, I found some conflicting stuff even in the wine world (which has a project!) about whether to reference the producer or the product. I'm not even sure about what side makes more sense, as some of the whisky articles are decently written from the product perspective (Glenfiddich). As I'm sure you can tell, I am very passionate about this stuff, and I'm just trying to improve the quality of these articles. If I want to engage the community in developing some kind of standard format and style for these articles, how do you recommend I proceed? Thanks for your input. Nestorius (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote the article (my first one), and I agree that it is more about the distillery than the whisky. We could simply mpove the article and revert to your changes.

As far a getting the community involved is concerned; I'm sure there are plenty of interested parties out there, but a project would have to be started. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the experience to get involved in projects. TINY MARK 18:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move and revert sounds good to me. I can't do it as this username has only been registered for 2 days and I don't want to use my old one.

It seems like this topic might be too esoteric for a project - is that a correct evaluation of Wikipolitics? Nestorius (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a more relevant question - many distilleries have article titles like 'XX Single Malt'. I'm assuming I would get a lot of flak for changing all of these to 'XX' or 'XX (distillery)', so where can I discuss this besides each of the individual article talk pages? Apologies if I'm being too inquisitive. Nestorius (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I currently have to use my neighbour's WLAN connection and the recption is very sporadic. After moving the Port Charlotte page and fixing the links to it, I think attempting to move all the other pages would be a lot of work, and possibly wasted time if no consensus has been reached. You would either have to initiate a WikiProject or place merge tags on all the relevant pages. I certainly prefer you approach because most of the whisky pages are little more than tasting notes! TINY MARK 22:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thing could become very complex. I did a little "research" (within Wikipedia) and found there are substantially more brands of Scotch than there are distilleries.

I agree there is potential for a lot of flak here. Going slowly seems to me a good idea. IMO the chance of finding a consensus is slim; about the same as finding one on which is the best single malt.

Can we have a list of the articles that have been edited to change from the "product POV" to the "distillery POV"? Then I can put them on my watchlist to see what the reaction is. Also read them and think some more about the approach. Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderer - most distilleries only produce one brand, are you thinking of blended whiskies? I can only think of a few malt distilleries that produce more than one 'brand' per se... Springbank, Bruichladdich, perhaps Caol Ila depending on your interpretation of brand (they produce an unpeated spirit sold only to blenders). Other ones will produce peated vs. unpeated malts, and of course age them in different casks, but they will fall under the same brand.

Anyways, here are the ones that I have changed to distillery POV (and I am also watching):

* Ardbeg

* Bruichladdich

* Laphroaig

* Caol Ila

* Port Charlotte (distillery)

If you want to compare the distiller to product POV the Talisker article is decently written from the product POV perspective (I'm going to hold off changing anything else as there is clearly nothing resembling a consensus here). Re: an overall improvement of the whisky articles, I think a lot can probably be learned from how the wine wikiproject does things. Also, perhaps we should find a better place for this discussion? Cheers Nestorius (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are both welcome to continue our discussion here until we find somewhere else. Talisker article? Well-written? Hmmm... No refs! ;-) TINY MARK 15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nestorius: I notice you are Canadian and wonder why you changed "litres" to "L" in the Port Charlotte (distillery) article. The correct abbreviation is lowercase. And "litres" as opposed to "liters" is fine as this is a UK-based article, as explained here TINY MARK 16:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct abbreviation is neither majescule or minuscule (typography is one of my other hobbies...). Either are acceptable. I never used 'liter'. L is becoming preferable [[1]] and Litre#Symbol. I'm not going to get in an edit war over this though :) Nestorius (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never imagined you would use "liter". Canadians follow the French spelling as we Brits do, or not?? I would also point out that, in spite of its name, IE³ is American and only applies to electrical uses. If I could be bothered, I'm sure I could find something from the ISO about that! Unfortunately, I grew up with the SI system, so it will always be "l" for me, which is a litte unfortunate because Wikipedia uses a sans serif font by default. As there is enough space in the infobox perhaps we should just stick to "litres"? TINY MARK 16:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are making this too complicated. Let's go back to fifths. ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true, Wanderer :D. Sticking to litres is fine with me. TinyMark, can you revert so it doesn't look malicious on my part? Nestorius (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have changed the PC and Bruichladdich articles. We can do the others as we come across them. Er. How much is a fifth in Imperial gallons/pints? TINY MARK 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. What do you think about proceeding to edit some of the larger distillery articles into 'distillery' POV and watching them? Fifth gallon ~= 750mL (~a pint and a half?). Note this is std bottling for North America, European standard is 700mL. Nestorius (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll take a look at some of them, but, as I said, my connection is pretty sporadic and will not be up and running properly until 1 May. I remember a song from Kiss in the late seventies and there was something about "buying a couple of quarts"! If we do the distillery POV would it be an idea to have a "Bottling" section with sub-sections for the individual bottlings (taste, ABV, colour etc.)?

As I understand it, a fifth is an American term and means a fifth of an American gallon. It is almost exactly 757 ml. A fifth of an Imperial gallon would be 909 ml.

I think it would be a good idea to leave the conversion to distillery POV a few days to see what the reaction is to what is already done. These articles do not get amended very often by Wikipedia standards. There may be some editors who are interested but don't look in every day. But if you are keen to go forward, I'm not going to stand in your way. I think there are points to make for either approach.

Don't be surprised if you edit an article to the distillery POV and get huge opposition from someone who a) likes it the way it is, b) has been drinking that brand for the last thirty years, and c) knows more about the distillery and its products than you or I will ever know. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the POV then for a while, I don't want to start any controversy. It seems that someone created a ton of the whisky pages with the convention 'XX Single Malt'- can we agree that that is not appropriate (analogous to calling something Budweiser Beer)? These should be renamed to XX or where not possible XX (distillery) EDIT: argh, that isn't right at all. Maybe I'll leave the ones that won't move.

Also what I have in mind for most of the articles is just cleanup, moving information to/fixing up the infoboxes, removing blatant tasting notes (beyond general character e.g. peaty which is the way that the wine project treats things) and checking the external links. Nestorius (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nestorius: I see you found another uncapitalized proper noun on The Glenlivet. Keep your eyes open for these. I have a feeling that a lot of these pages where originally written by ze Germans! And for them adjectives are always lowercase. TINY MARK 00:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. I noticed you are a native speaker yourself... I have a bit of German education and lived in Germany for a few months. On a different note, are either of you two whisky geeks like I am? Nestorius (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a "native" speaker, but to native level. I started speasking German at the age of 22 and have lived here for 28 years. Go figure! TINY MARK 01:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did some research on WikiProjects... I wonder if there is/was a taskforce under Food & Drink for Scotch whisky? Nestorius (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Glenfiddich. Referenced this page - hopefully it will start some discussion. Nestorius (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whisky Geek?

(previous section way too long.)

I woud'na ca myself a whisky geek. (Try saying that after two or three glasses.) I've been drinking the stuff for quite a while though. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. But I do enjoy it and have quite an impressive collection at home. But I'm not a collector-all my bottles have been opened...hic! TINY MARK 05:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear about the collection part... the only bottles I have unopened will be opened within the next year... although I would consider myself a whisky geek, love the mystery of the process and the process. Just an aside as I was wondering :) Nestorius (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinna forget to tell us when ye're opening them. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Balvenie

Article should be moved to 'The Balvenie', analogous to 'The Macallan', 'The Glenlivet'. Nestorius (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was once told that very few distilleries are allowed to use the definite article in their name (dunno who says they can). And I'm not sure about Balvenie. I won't be around today. I'm just going down to the Irish pub, which has around 250 single malts. It's half-price night tonight. But don't worry, I'll be thinking of you while I#m enjoying it! ;-) TINY MARK 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Balvenie is definitely one of them - their official url is 'thebalvenie.com', and they always refer to themselves with the def. article.

Argh, if I didn't have so much work I'd be pouring a dram of The Balvenie's 93 PortWood tonight. Cheers Nestorius (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]