![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For most lists like this, the inclusion criteria for entries is having their own Wikipedia article. See WP:WTAF
Minimally, each entry has to be verifiable. To avoid WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and WP:NPOV problems, each entry without it's own article should be verified by independent, reliable sources. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Interesting: I see that those stern instructions were added just last month, by user:Mercurywoodrose, [2] but they did not actually delete anything; they left in all the breweries that violated the strict criteria they were proposing! No wonder it was confusing. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
See the Notablity guidelines which say "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article". Also the manual of style for list selection criteria. I think a list of breweries could come under the criteria for "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." -- Vclaw ( talk) 12:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I must be missing something here. The title of the article is "List of Breweries in San Diego County, California." Not "List of Particularly Notable Breweries in San Diego County, CA". Surely, the title alone argues for an inclusive list, as you're otherwise intentionally producing an extremely (and arbitrarily) stunted list. There are somewhere between 60 and 100 breweries in San Diego County. This article, in its current incarnation, lists 15. While I could understand a criteria for demonstrating the existence of a given brewery, for the life of me I can't understand why on earth you would list only 'notable' breweries. I've read the talk page here, and the prevailing answer to that question seems to be, "Because." Can anyone actually explain the reasoning behind this to me? -- Jredwards ( talk) 21:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Press releases, local interest stories, etc aren't usually going to be good enough for our use. Breweries that meet WP:ORG are fine. Breweries with products that have won national-level awards are at least worth discussing. I've trimmed down the sources to two that mention gold medals. I'd prefer that we knew the breweries in question had multiple such awards over multiple years. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The article currently warns at the top, DO NOT add breweries/brewpubs/microbreweries to this list unless they already have Wikipedia articles, or could reasonably be expected to be the subject of an article or article section. For names not linked to articles or article sections, you must provide at least one reference from a reliable source indicating the subjects notability as a brewery in San Diego County, or the name will be removed. For notability criteria, please see the article's talk page. Based on the discussion here, it appears that this warning - to list only beers that have Wikipedia articles or could reasonably be expected to have Wikipedia articles - does not have consensus. The criterion I proposed above, which Ronz eventually agreed with, is VERIFIABILITY, not notability (in the sense of notable enough for a standalone article). I said the items on the list should either 1) have a Wikipedia article (in which case they are presumably notable) or 2) be verified by a link to an independent reliable source. Ronz said he agreed with this. Vclaw and Jredwards have also argued for the "verifiability" criterion. Seriously, if we limit this list to breweries that are notable enough for their own article, what's the point of having a list? It's just a duplicate of a category.
This comes to my attention (again) because a new editor just added half a dozen breweries to the list, carefully providing citations to an independent source - and then they read this page and deleted all their additions! That is just wrong. Despite the drastic pruning of the list which Ronz has insisted on, there is no consensus here to limit the list to notable breweries. I am going to rewrite the warning at the top of the page to specify verifiability rather than notability, and I am going to re-add the recent additions which were the subject of independent coverage. -- MelanieN ( talk) 11:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand that we don't want this list filled with fake brewery names or for every homebrewer to list themselves here, so having some criteria for inclusion makes sense. But I keep seeing editors adding, in good faith, well-known local brewers and then seeing other editors remove those additions as "spam" simply because they lack a reference. How does having an editor who's not even familiar with the area delete the listing for Hess or Modern Times or some other name that any San Diego craft beer fan would recognize improve anything? Yeah, it makes things comply some self-imposed rule, but doesn't otherwise make the page better. If you want to improve the quality of this page, how about looking for references for unreferenced brewers? They're easy to find! So, a suggestion: before deleting an entry, make at least a minimal effort to find a reference first. Please? -- Rmalouf ( talk) 22:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For most lists like this, the inclusion criteria for entries is having their own Wikipedia article. See WP:WTAF
Minimally, each entry has to be verifiable. To avoid WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and WP:NPOV problems, each entry without it's own article should be verified by independent, reliable sources. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Interesting: I see that those stern instructions were added just last month, by user:Mercurywoodrose, [2] but they did not actually delete anything; they left in all the breweries that violated the strict criteria they were proposing! No wonder it was confusing. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
See the Notablity guidelines which say "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article". Also the manual of style for list selection criteria. I think a list of breweries could come under the criteria for "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." -- Vclaw ( talk) 12:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I must be missing something here. The title of the article is "List of Breweries in San Diego County, California." Not "List of Particularly Notable Breweries in San Diego County, CA". Surely, the title alone argues for an inclusive list, as you're otherwise intentionally producing an extremely (and arbitrarily) stunted list. There are somewhere between 60 and 100 breweries in San Diego County. This article, in its current incarnation, lists 15. While I could understand a criteria for demonstrating the existence of a given brewery, for the life of me I can't understand why on earth you would list only 'notable' breweries. I've read the talk page here, and the prevailing answer to that question seems to be, "Because." Can anyone actually explain the reasoning behind this to me? -- Jredwards ( talk) 21:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Press releases, local interest stories, etc aren't usually going to be good enough for our use. Breweries that meet WP:ORG are fine. Breweries with products that have won national-level awards are at least worth discussing. I've trimmed down the sources to two that mention gold medals. I'd prefer that we knew the breweries in question had multiple such awards over multiple years. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The article currently warns at the top, DO NOT add breweries/brewpubs/microbreweries to this list unless they already have Wikipedia articles, or could reasonably be expected to be the subject of an article or article section. For names not linked to articles or article sections, you must provide at least one reference from a reliable source indicating the subjects notability as a brewery in San Diego County, or the name will be removed. For notability criteria, please see the article's talk page. Based on the discussion here, it appears that this warning - to list only beers that have Wikipedia articles or could reasonably be expected to have Wikipedia articles - does not have consensus. The criterion I proposed above, which Ronz eventually agreed with, is VERIFIABILITY, not notability (in the sense of notable enough for a standalone article). I said the items on the list should either 1) have a Wikipedia article (in which case they are presumably notable) or 2) be verified by a link to an independent reliable source. Ronz said he agreed with this. Vclaw and Jredwards have also argued for the "verifiability" criterion. Seriously, if we limit this list to breweries that are notable enough for their own article, what's the point of having a list? It's just a duplicate of a category.
This comes to my attention (again) because a new editor just added half a dozen breweries to the list, carefully providing citations to an independent source - and then they read this page and deleted all their additions! That is just wrong. Despite the drastic pruning of the list which Ronz has insisted on, there is no consensus here to limit the list to notable breweries. I am going to rewrite the warning at the top of the page to specify verifiability rather than notability, and I am going to re-add the recent additions which were the subject of independent coverage. -- MelanieN ( talk) 11:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand that we don't want this list filled with fake brewery names or for every homebrewer to list themselves here, so having some criteria for inclusion makes sense. But I keep seeing editors adding, in good faith, well-known local brewers and then seeing other editors remove those additions as "spam" simply because they lack a reference. How does having an editor who's not even familiar with the area delete the listing for Hess or Modern Times or some other name that any San Diego craft beer fan would recognize improve anything? Yeah, it makes things comply some self-imposed rule, but doesn't otherwise make the page better. If you want to improve the quality of this page, how about looking for references for unreferenced brewers? They're easy to find! So, a suggestion: before deleting an entry, make at least a minimal effort to find a reference first. Please? -- Rmalouf ( talk) 22:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)