Talk:Homebrewing/Rewrite Merger

Rewrites and Merger

Big rewrite

I am in the process of doing a massive rewrite of this page. The information contained in it is not incorrect, just extremely limited in scope. --rimbaud 14:50, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Let me know how I can help. I am also contemplating an entirely separate and more focused beer encyclopedia on a separate site. -- dmcalist 10:30, April 15, 2005

Looks like no one has done anything here for some time. Actually I think the information could stand a good working over and some is actually inaccurate. Being a new Wikipedia wannabe editor I'll wait a couple of weeks for anyone else to claim the rights before I jump in. That'll be around the end of the first week in October '05. -- Bob 18:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Be Bold! Go right ahead and edit the article. If we don't like your changes, we'll let you know. :D --goethean ॐ 18:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Home Mead and Cider Making

Should these be discussed here, on the Mead and cider pages or on new pages entirely? Frank 19:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be great to have distinct articles. --Elliskev 18:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A new agenda for Home brewing

Okay - if I have to get down and dirty to make a point, I'm up for it.

DavidP02 - Brief CV

31 years home brewing, 15 years as a technical author, 10 years as a technical trainer, 5 years as a technical examiner and 2 years journalism writing real articles for real paper publications.

Home brewing header article

1) I have the greatest of respect for the original authors, however this article gets off on the wrong foot from the start. The compact Oxford dictionary define home-brew as beer or other alcoholic liquid brewed at home (p474); as such any article which takes a beer-centred point of view is kind of missing the point. My suggestion would be that home brewing forms a header article that goes into brief detail about the main kinds of alcoholic beverage brewed at home, but leaves the detail for separate, beverage-specific articles.

2) The 1979 start point is wholly US-centred and frankly pointless. It leaves out the traditions in Australia, UK and Europe which have vibrant home-brewing communities and are subject to separate legal frameworks and legislative start points. The history section might more sensibly start from the earliest self-brewing prohibition start point in all these areas and work forwards.

3) It would probably be wise to differentiate the main branches of home brewing and pehaps classify them loosely between lambic, (naturally occuring), yeast methods and those that used introduced yeast cultures. The main types of homebrew, beer, wine, cider, mead and others should then be dealt with separately.

4) The article could then be rounded off with some cultural comment plus some legal warnings by territory. For example, the distilling of malted barley brews makes malt whisky, so the removal of a legal warning about distilling beers was probably inadvisable. Similarly wine becomes brandy, cider becomes calvados and dark sugar brews become rum. This is typically illegal and the article should say as much whilst taking into account territorial differences.

With all due respect to the OED, I've never heard the term "brewing" to refer to anything other than beer, mead (and its variants), and alcoholic cider (and its variants). Winemaking, while chemically a very similar process, is not referred to as "brewing". And, obviously, distillation is a completely different process from a chemical perspective.

Aside from that caveat, I agree with your other points and I agree that this article is in desperate need of a re-write.

All the best,

Ξxtreme Unction

01:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

On beer

1) The article falls down rather alot in terms of NPOV, being mostly aimed at the extract brewer. The majority of homebrewers are in fact kit brewers. People who make the leap to extract often quickly make the leap full-grain and I can put up proper statistics to prove it.

Please do so. Published data from a respectable source would be necessary to back up such an assertion. Bri2k1 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I had planned to use data on kits from a large kit manufacturer to back up the argumnet but they have taken the data off the web, so I'm a bit stuck on this one for the time being. DavidP02 21:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing anything you come up with as well; I don't doubt that kits are more popular in a worldwide context, but my own data seems to suggest that extract brewers are largely content to stick with that method. I s'pose it varies a lot with locality and availability of ingredients. MalkavianX 05:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

2) The article completely fails to mention brewing water and water-conditioning; being that beer has only four main ingredients, missing out its largest contituent would seem a glaring oversite.

This has now been dealt with in the brewing liquor section. DavidP02 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

3) The prejudice towards pasteurised beer, carbuoys and carbonation is extreme. Whilst these methods are employed, particulalry in the states, they certainly are not universal or necessarily desirable.

4) There is probably as much live yeast in an unpasteurised beer as there is in an apple. I'd love to see a source for the "gas" statement.

5) Basically a complete re-write is necessary taking into account the full range of brewing traditions giving equal weight to kit, extract and all-grain methods.

On other brews

Im happy to have a go at these as well, but can see that some people have already put themselves down for them.

DavidP02 19:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole brewing thing

Back in the original re-wrtie proposal, I pointed out the need to consider different end beverages as the reader's objective. I'm cool with just doing beer as writing three break-out articles is a major undertaking. I also remember Extreme had a language objection to using homebrewing to cover all the main branches of the craft.

So the options are:-

• Write the thing with the beer process as an example process; or
• Cover all processes and write break out article on beer, cider and wine (leaving options for mead and others later).

Any thoughts???

At least around here, beer is by far the most popular thing folks brew at home, so I don't think it's a problem if the article focuses mainly on homebrewing of beer. Until we have a lot of info on mead, wine, etc., there's no real reason to break those out into separate articles, as they'll just be stubs. Feeding starch and sugar to yeast to turn it into an alcoholic beverage, at home, is clearly the topic of this article. A paragraph or two on cider, mead, etc. is entirely appropriate here in my view. This is an article that is primarily written for readers who don't brew at home and want to read about it, so excluding things that aren't beer just because of specialist usage of the word would be a mistake. —ptk✰fgs 22:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll start with the way you suggest and see how things come out. DavidP02 11:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've begun to break the methods up logically. I felt it particularly imprtant to pay a little more attention to kits as so many people are disappoint with the results they get from kits that need added sugar. DavidP02 12:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind, and I say this only as a general observation rather than a specific critique of the article as it currently stands (point of fact, I have not yet read the article as it currently stands): Articles should not be how-to guides. If the article becomes a step-by-step guide on how to brew beer (or mead or what-have-you) at home, it moves outside the scope of what a Wikipedia article should cover.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction
02:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good point Unc. I've tried to focus mostly on getting all the main terminology in place, but that has included some description of how things are done. Basically, I'm trying to put someone in a situation where, when talking to an experienced home brewer, they would understand all the principles and the jargon he or she might discuss. I would appreciate your thoughts on the work so far. 82.18.18.215 14:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry EU that was me not signed in... DavidP02 22:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Continuing development

Added Liquors, boiling, extract, partial and started separating out the end of the existing process text. Still hunting for some really full on photos and need to put in a bucket of referrences - many of which I do have... DavidP02 23:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Some references and pics and some work on full mashes tonight. Note to self, getting a bit strangled - tighten up prose... DavidP02 00:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing Mash / Sparge from the culture section

I know this has been reverted. Can all interested editors see how it has been covered as part of the process section and discuss? I guess it is an aspect of brew culture but it's basically a brewing method and I have already covered it. DavidP02 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

long article

This article is getting long. I recommend that the section "The process" be split off to its own article. — goethean ॐ 23:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I agree - That was the original plan, but on advice from other editors went back to covering beer as a main brewing topic. Can I ssuggest I finish the article which is getting close then we work on a plitout ot=r do you think this is a priority now. I'm happy to go with either. :D DavidP02 23:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Spltting the article is not really a priority. — goethean ॐ 15:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay so how do we create a Category: called Homebrewing and then attach a series of articles to it? DavidP02 22:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

there is one already, and this article's already in it. — goethean ॐ 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What he said. For future reference, you can create a category using the same method as you would to create any other article; the only difference is that the article title begins with "Category:", e.g. Category:Whatever. To add articles to the new category, you have to edit each of the articles and add [[Category:Whatever]] to them. --Mwalimu59 23:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay on the long article thing, I created a facsimile called homebrewing beer with a small nav section to get back to this article... Is this a way forward? If so I'll cut the process bit down to generic stuff DavidP02 23:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is getting overloaded with beer-specific homebrewing information again. Two things to keep in mind: there's a beer brewing article at homebrewing beer; and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. --Stlemur (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger with Homebrewing beer

I suggest merging this article with Homebrewing beer. They mostly duplicate each other. Thetrick 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they duplicate each other to a certain extent and need sorting out. I think the original intention was to move the "process" section from this article to Homebrewing beer. I've add back the merge tag to indicate that something needs to be done, but it may not actually result in a full merge, rather a rationalisation of what text needs to be in each article instead of the current duplication. -- MightyWarrior 11:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be reasonable. If that is done, the remaining article should be made less beer-centric. (I personally think that Homebrewing implicitly means Homebrewing beer and that if this article is to be a overview of the generic process for wine, beer, cider, mead, etc., it should be moved to Home alcohol production or something similar. But that's a discussion best left for another day....) Thetrick 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone who homebrews beer I disagree, and think that homebrewing means cider and everything else, even spirits to an extent (everything leading up to the distilling). I think there should be a hombrewing article that deals with all the different alcohols that can be made and a homebrewing beer article that links from that that deals exclusively with beer homebrewing. (Justinboden86 14:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Since I agree homebrewing covers much more than beer, and it has been a while since the merge was proposed with no headway made, I'm going to remove the merge tags. BigNate37_(T) 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger

I reopened the merger conversation. It's been a year of editing both articles, and the previous conversation was hardly spectacular or decisive. Llamabr (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. Beer is not the only thing that's homebrewed; what about kvass, cider, wine, poitín, chicha.... --Stlemur (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Could be, but the article is not about those things. I see someone added a mention of them yesterday. That's a good start. but right now, both articles are about the same thing. Homebrewing of beer. Llamabr (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't justify a merger. That justifies an expansion of this article's non-beer sections. The problem is, people keep dumping things here instead of in homebrewing beer. --Stlemur (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to justify moving everything from homebrewing beer here. If the two articles have identical content, there's no reason to have the more specific one. There's nothing in that article that's not also contained here (or that couldn't be). Llamabr (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's backwards. The beer information should go in one place, yes, not duplicated, but if it all gets moved here we have an article that woefully overemphasizes one aspect of homebrewing and drives all the others into a corner. --Stlemur (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's backward, too. But as it is now, there's two articles that say essentially the same thing. Put them together. As one aspect becomes emphasized in the big article, it can be taken out to form its own. Right now Homebrewing is about homebrewing beer, as is Homebrewing beer. Why should both articles exist if they're about the same thing? 23:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamabr (talk • contribs)

Because this article isn't supposed to be about homebrewing beer specifically, it's about homebrewing in general. I think we're agree on that. This article's flaws are not a reason to eliminate another article. --Stlemur (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If there were two articles, one called 'The Simpsons (show)', which was all about the simpson family, and another article called 'The Simpsons (family)' that was all about the simpsons family, I'd say that, although there are two different topics, right now there's only one article, in two places. You would merge them, and if someone wanted to come and write a new article about the show, they could. But right now there's no article about the show -- there's an article about the family, with a title about the show.

That's what we have here. An article about homebrewing beer, with a title about homebrewing in general. As it is, there's no reason to keep that article, since everything it says is included here. I say merge Homebrewing into Homebrewing beer, and then let someone write a general article about homebrewing, if you want. Llamabr (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There are separate articles on the show and the family. --Stlemur (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your final comments leaves me a bit puzzled -- I don't think you took my previous point.

Anyway, The tag and the conversation have been there for 2 weeks now, with no interest, save yours. Let's put it to a vote. I vote not to bother with the merger, and hope that someone gets around to cleaning up both articles. Shall we remove the tag? Llamabr (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merge and a tidy up. We need one article on homebrewing (which implies beer, but can include the brewing of other beverages which can be dealt with within a homebrewing article). The material on brewing in general which is present in the homebrewing beer article needs to be merged with Brewing, though a small summary style section of one or two paragraphs giving an overview of the brewing process would be appropriate. Homebrewing is not different to professional brewing except in terms of taxation and legal restrictions on selling. Very small scale breweries in the UK which are in people's kitchens, and use domestic equipment, are professional breweries. At the same time, homebrewers can and do hire professional breweries on which to make their homebrews. Of course homebrewers do mostly brew at home on domestic equipment and that should be detailed, but the article really needs to focus on the history, legality, organisation, competitions, etc of homebrewing as distinct from professional brewing, but the process of brewing itself should be neutral and linked from the Homebrewing, Beer and Brewery articles. SilkTork *^YES! 21:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see merger as the only sensible way forward along with a total review of the material in both articles, because:-

• The beer article is overly long and extremely confusing.
• Some of the pictures in both articles simply do not represent the common practices of the majority of homebrewers.
• Careful balancing of the the territorial tone in the main home brewing article is wholly undermined by a partial and US-centred repetition of information in the subsidiary article.
• Secondary fermentation outside of the bottle or barrel is primarily a mid-European method of beer production and is simply not used in most UK/US/Australian brewing.

'Too many cooks have have spoiled the broth' here and both articles are in desperate need of clarity.

The main objection seems to be the different brewing methods applied. This can be addressed simply by dealing with the three main categories of musts and worts:-

• Fruit and berry pressings
• Diluted honeys and sugars
• Hot mashed grains

The article can then deal with whether the resulting sugar solutions are fermented lambically or via the introduction of a specific yeast culture.

Territorial differences in technique should be dealt with certainly, but broadly, you add yeast to a fermentable sugar solution, condition, then drink the product. That is adequate information for this type of publication. This is not a brewing manual, it is a wikipedia entry! DavidP73 (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest merging this article with Homebrewing. They mostly duplicate each other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thetrick (talk • contribs) 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Discussion on this took place at Talk:Homebrewing#Merger with Homebrewing beer. BigNate37_(T) 21:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding comment moved by Chasingmytail

Homebrewing not just beer

This is an outstanding article as written, however as the previous editor mentioned it focuses mostly on the honebrewing of beer. While beer homebrewing probably does dominate the hobby, there are many homebrewers (myself among them) who also homebrew wine and cider, and among other things it's not uncommon for people to brew mead, sake, and combinations of any of the above (braggot, etc.)

Maybe this article should lead off by making reference to this fact, and then split into different articles? Not really sure how to reflect the fact that homebrewing really is a diverse hobby.--Caliga10 16:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well--I mentioned this in the heading just above this one. Persnally, I think home wine, mead, cider, sake, etc. making should probably have thier own pages ultimately. They're closesly related but not the same. There's some question as to whether mead or cider making constitutes brewing at all; some people feel the term "brewing" should be reserved strictly for beer. Frank 16:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you did (I even gave you props, man!) I disagree that the term "brewing" should be reserved strictly for beer, as you might have guessed, but that's just my own opinion of course. Also, the process by which one makes wine and cider is generally similar enough to the beer making process, in terms of tools used, use of yeast, etc. that it seems like there'd be alot of redundancy involved in duplicating that stuff into different articles. The major difference is that wort is generally boiled and hops added to the boil, unless the beer is dry hopped.... but I believe some people follow a similar process to add herbs to mead.--Caliga10 16:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, it shouldn't really matter how you or I think of the term "brewing" but common usage (in the interest of NPOV). Anyway, I'm fine w/ whoever wants to take the initiative on actually writing on mead/cider/whatever making just putting it where they think is best at the moment. We can talk all we want about where the info should go but if we aren't actually adding anything we're just blowing smoke. If there's only a small amount of info added on the subjects, it might be better to have it all in one place rather scattered about on stubs. Of course, if there's enough info (and there will be eventually, I assume, just maybe not right away) then each subject merrits its own entry. Frank 17:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting Started

Home brewing history

(I have edited an email address and request for recipes out of this chat).

I am planning to start with the history section. I don't propose to run a full beer history, that is more appropriate for the main beer article. I propose to start with an 1880 British Act which was the earliest I have yet found to legalise, (if taxed), home brewing. This start point will allow a run through of the prohibition and legalisation periods of both the US and Australia. I have a French colleague looking into the position in France and Belgium. I have reasonable sources for most facts and am tidying up the information for a re-draft shortly.

DavidP02 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In line with this, I've added a main article reference to the brewing history article.

I have made the very beginnings of a draft to globalise the history section. I have taken out the 'globalize' tag as we now have some historical comment for the UK and Australia.

I have now expanded the history section to cover regulation, liberalisation, the differing development in different countries and some pioneering figures in the craft. (Note to self: Need more and stronger references!) DavidP02 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have save the following text for a later move to a more relevant section of the article:-

"Later that same year, Charlie Papazian founded the Association of Brewers. In 1984 Papazian published The Complete Joy of Homebrewing."

I have now reintegrated this back into the text DavidP02 23:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole article needs references adding which I have yet to do.

DavidP02 22:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have also inserted a references section for citings as they come up... DavidP02 22:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: I need to find some suitable external references wher eI have so far used Wikipedia DavidP02 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A polite note on concatenating "home" and "brewing"

The Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam Webster, the American Heritage Dictionary and even the book featured in header picture for this article all agree that the only way to concatenate these two words is with a hyphen or not at all.

"Homebrew" is variously a trade name and many other things; however, with respect, it is neither English nor American English. So, with due regard to the Googlefight fans of this world, please can we agree to use English rather than continue to torture the language to death via a thousand abbreviations... ;-)

DavidP02 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem here. The important thing is that the written name and wikipedia title agree. "Googlefight" is just useful for determining common usage (while providing mild amusement). I too prefer the name without concatenation. I'm not sure who copied the content over to here, and all is water under the bridge now, but I think using the "move" tab at the top of the page is preferable to cutting and pasting as it keeps the history all in one place. Just keep this in mind for future reference. -MrFizyx 01:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually a page move is problematic for other reasons. There is a category, and even the article on Charlie Papazian gives his book with the concatenated term. I don't know the style guide policy in great detail without looking--why not hold off on the page move until someone else can give input on the name? -MrFizyx 01:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Now actually checking on the above:

• Oxford English Dictionary -> "home-brew" (with one example written as "homebrew")
• American Heritage Dictionary -> "homebrew" (with "home brew" as a variant)
• Merriam Webster -> "home brew"

I reckon all of 'em is good English and we just need to pick one. -MrFizyx 03:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Name of the article

I have moved all new content from Home brewing back to here (Homebrewing) until the name issue can be resolved. After further thought, I'm now of the opinion that Homebrewing is indeed the better name. This has long been used throughout wikipedia, and is the choice used by the organizations in Homebrewing#External links (which represent US, UK and Canadian usage). I think it would be helpful to hear several editors give their thoughts on this though. -MrFizyx 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a homebrewer and patronize a homebrew store on occasion, and have always seen it written as "homebrewing".--Caliga10 02:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that does not reflect either my printed OED or my search which deliberately used the contraction to see what happened. Nonetheless, the references on the basis of your search would seem to make some allowance for this colloquial varient.

This creates a considerable problem with the consistency of all citations as all the major literature uses the form "Home Brewing" of "Home Brew". On a point of interest, I wandered into a take-away recently and was offered an attractively-priced chicken burgher (sic). I have yet to start cannibalising my fellow citizens in rural Hertfordshire, however. Shop signs and styles are a rule unto themselves.

Primarily, I would like to try and write the article in the usages common to the nation of my birth, as I gather I am permitted to do, without correction, by the style guidelines. However, I am also striving for consistency of usage within the article; which will not be possible if I correctly site the titles of the main literature. Finally, contractions are typically colloquial until they have been in the language for many years; winemaking for example made it all the way some time ago. I look forward to retitling the article on homo erectus to hairy ancient dude with relish. I feel that colloquial references from the Wayne's World Dictionary are now such common parlance that my arbitrary decision to distract the author from his main task is wholly justifiable.

DavidP02 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you'll find in both the Manual of Style and in various ArbCom rulings that the Wikipedia preference is leave articles with the title under which they were created, if they are titled with a name that is particular to the US or to the UK. The ArbCom has historically frowned upon people coming in to an article written by an American and changing everything to British spellings and usages, and also vice versa. At least one editor has been permanently banned from Wikipedia for his inability to leave British spellings alone. (He made a point of changing every British spelling he found into its equivalent American spelling.)

So, since the article was created at "Homebrewing," and since that's the common term in the US (American Homebrewing Association, The Complete Joy of Homebrewing, etc), then clearly it should remain at "Homebrewing".

All the best,

Ξxtreme Unction

13:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

...which still completely fails to address my citation issue. Oh and by the way...

http://www.amazon.com/New-Complete-Joy-Home-Brewing/dp/0380763664 ...to reinforce my point, the book simply is not called anything to do with "homebrewing". Nonetheless we all seem keen to pursue our own argument rather than put together a framework which will help me get this written.

I am not, to quote the reaction so far, "vandalising" anything or going 'round correcting American English spellings to English. What I am trying to do is make a sober attempt to re-write an article which whilst it has the interest of so many is; US-centred, often, though unintentionally, inaccurate, fails to make any references, makes wholly biased assertions about the craft and generally annoys the living daylights out of me.

So in the word one Ronnie Corbett. 'It's goodbye from me...'

I plan to leave the rest of this to you fabled i-dotters and t-crossers. I am used to working with the house style of various publications. I have no desire to waste my time with one that is managed by the self-appointed committee that designed the lemming.

We will somehow struggle on in your absence. It will be difficult, certainly, but we will manage. Ξxtreme Unction 17:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty common for citations to have variation in spelling. This is not considered a problem. I think you are looking for Americentric tendencies where there are none. Obviously the "legal" section here needs information about homebrewing in other countries, but I the difference between "homebrewing" and "home brewing" is so small as to be irrelevant. Even the Craft Brewing Association web page uses "homebrewing", right alongside "home brewing". You may want to consider obtaining a newer copy of the OED (or seeking out the unabridged edition); the entry I'm reading right now lists "home-brewing" and "homebrewing", but actually does not list "home brewing" at all. —ptk✰fgs 17:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is a miniscule point is well made; thank you. Nonetheless, it seems important enough for a series of people who regard themselves as guardians of this encyclopedia have jumped in to edit back this minor issue to the point of changing book titles to make them inaccurate. However, whilst it would appear that there a number of experienced craft brewers here, most sections do take a rather narrow view of a very broad subject. I have already edited out the American only history and tried to stop the General information reflecting only the process of extract beer brewing and the time involved.

I regret my loss of temper, as I have been trying to join in the editing debate with a little bit of humour. However, there seems to have been little humour in return, just playing the rules hard to make sure one particular point of view gets across even on the minutest matters. I really don't care whether you agree with my opinions or not wikipedians, but a good editor lets the writer get into the cut and thrust of the article; then he is savage with his pen. I have to say, I am surprised anything gets written here.

Nevertheless, despite Extreme's determination to soldier on without me, I'm going to give this one last go. Then, frankly please do with it what you will. Could I please appeal for a couple of days to try and get some sensible revisions down. Then if you don't agree, revert the whole thing for all I care.

DavidP02 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Extract brewing

The article seems to state that in order to use additional malt or adjunct grains a partial mashing process is required; in my experience this isn't always so, at least in the US brewing scene. Working in a (large) homebrew supply store I'd like to point out that a great many brewers utilize extra grains without a proper partial mash, instead steeping the grains for varying amounts of time (depends on the recipe and the brewer) even though malts used in this manner may contribute no fermentables due to lack of enzymes or improper temperature, they are effective in adding color, body (mostly in the form of dextrines, AFAIK) and flavor to an extract brew. MalkavianX 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This may be a national difference in practice. Typically only dead malts are used in the UK to add colour. 80.169.25.228 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)