Talk:List of breweries in Washington (state)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability?

What is the point of keeping breweries off the list if they exist? Isn't the list the notable subject itself? What is the point of having a "list of breweries" when it's actually only a "list of breweries that meet certain, nebulous criteria that most people won't get and really make no sense?" Realistically, keep a brewery or brewpub off the list because they don't have a Wikipedia article (or could be expected to have one) defeats the purpose of a list of breweries, doesn't it? Doesn't keeping some breweries off the list give the false impression that there are FAR fewer breweries than there really are? Don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing for a directory. I am arguing for a quality list that people can use to help them sniff out information. There are plenty of other directories that give detailed information. Another thing to consider is if those directories exist, and not all breweries are going to be listed on this page, then why does this page exist? Why not get rid of this page, and the other pages for all other states? It's either what the page says it is, a list, or it's a selective article that points to notable Wikipedia articles. Needing to provide a reference for an outside source is also selective and arbitrary. That makes this entire page seem to be more meta than informational, and that means this information is/can be duplicated on this page: Category:Beer_brewing_companies_based_in_Washington_(state) Sir.eldren (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This topic has also been discussed elsewhere: Talk:List_of_breweries_in_California, but I'm not sure there's been any resolution. Sir.eldren (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The point isn't to keep breweries off the list. It's to ensure that the ones on the list: A. Exist, B: Are notable enough to be referenced in an independent publication. So a reliable source is expected here. It's not enough to simply put down the name of a brewery. Prof. Mc (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

And all the other lists on Wikipedia follow the same basic principles. Some list only things that have Wikipedia articles, which means they meet the Notability policies. They are not nebulous. The criteria are clear enough that they get applied every day by hundreds of editors, with no more than the usual amount of acrimonious debate. There's other lists which include things that don't necessarily have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists explains that you still need some criterion. You can't have an indiscriminate list. Anybody who wants an indiscriminate list can go type 'Washington brewery' into Google and in .000000012 seconds they'll have an indiscriminate list. Most people are smart enough to understand the difference between Wikipedia and a search engine, and they choose for themselves which one they'd prefer to use.

So if someone wanted to change the criteria to include all existing Washington breweries, you could propose that and see if there's support.

I do like the idea of changing the introduction to say clearly that it isn't a directory of every brewery; only those that are notable enough to have had significant coverage in reliable third party sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there ought to be clearer guidelines. Right now it's in a state of "learn through enforcement," which is a bit unfair to newbies. I very much like the:

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

template. Maybe it should be added to every brewery list page. Right now the general practice-through-enforcement rule, which has been going on for a long time, is to only have breweries that have Wiki pages, or that have a citation to an independent source. There are a few exceptions--the Illinois page for example--on very tightly run pages. Prof. Mc (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:REDLINK details this. Red links to notable topics are permitted. There are several breweries on the list that I am surprised to not see an article for. If the list is to be pruned, I suggest double checking notability for each one. That actually could be a god way to get some new articles.Cptnono (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And how about you guys get off your ass and create some articles. If you have the time to find a source you have the time. Two articles created and one more linked in 24hrs. We are supposed to be building the web and this project. I suppose we could let google do it for us instead. Cptnono (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Accurate number of microbrewery licenses

I think this page has excel sheets with an accurate, official list of how many microbrewery licenses there are in Washington, but I get internal server errors when I click on them today. We should check back on Monday to see if their site is up, and if not pester the WSLCB to fix it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

To me the Beer Commission website is more official and authoritative than Kendall Jone's personal blog, so I like citing it rather than the blog. Jones does seem to be a published writer who can be treated as an authority on Washington beer, particularly if you want to quote opinions. For data, I'm leery of trusting one guy who isn't working under an editor, with fact checkers and so on. WP:SPS gets into that in more detail as far as self-published sources. Case in point, the Washington Beer Blog says there are 251 (not 250) breweries, but http://washingtonbeer.com/breweries/ lists a total of 181, if you add them up. Where is Jones getting the other 70 breweries? These licenses are public records; we should be able to establish exactly how many valid microbrewery licenses are active at any given time from the Liquor Control Board itself, or else the Beer Commission. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I found the error and now the two lists are matching up pretty well. The actual number is pretty close to 250, but it depends on how you count. I'm going to try to clean up this data and put it in a format we can use. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The WSLCB Public Records Index is broken because their Excel files are misnamed as .asp files. If you downlaod the .asp file and rename it to .xls, it works. The correct number of licensed breweries in Washington right now is 281. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Postdoc Brewing Company

An IP is edit-warring to include this name based only on the inclusion of its name in a list of Washington breweries. My position is that all entries in this list need in-depth and reliable sources such as newspaper reviews, rather than merely being included because their existence is verifiable. But if others agree, someone else is going to need to remove the entry again (for the fifth or sixth time now?) because I'm past the limit for non-vandalism reverts. The IP is changing addresses, so continued edit-warring may also warrant semi-protection of this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is in depth coverage needed to include breweries in a list of breweries? That criteria makes no sense for a LIST. How is a list of breweries not good enough to update wikipedia's list of breweries? The Washington Beer Blog is well known in the WA beer community and an accurate source of information on breweries in WA and they list the brewery, and the Washington Beer Commission is a government created entity and they also list the brewery. It's existence can be confirmed on beeradvocate.com, ratebeer.com, untappd.com, yelp.com, and lots of other places. Why do you demand that a web resource like wikipedia requires print resources like newspapers? I was hoping to update the page since it is terribly out of date, but if you are going to require print references on every brewery then what is the point? I thought the point was to maintain accurate information, is that not the case? I could see if one reference was deemed unreliable, but when it is listed in more than half a dozen places then what? 2601:8:9600:1B00:D905:18AE:9205:BB4B (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That's the position I've taken in the past, per the discussion above. It's the same way we handle List of motorcycle clubs and List of outlaw motorcycle clubs. But it means that we are doomed to forever reverting new editors who add the name of a club/brewery they've heard of, because there's a potentially infinite number of clubs, or imagined clubs. But we could take a different approach on this list, because there will always be a finite, verifiable number of licensed microbreweries in Washington. As I said above, the WSLCB or the Beer Commission should have a list of that exact number. I'm getting about 183 of them on the Washington Beer Commission list, but I'm still cleaning up the data. So we could save ourselves a lot of headaches by agreeing to list those licensed breweries, no more and no less. This complies with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NNC -- Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article ...or list. Whether we redlink them would still follow the WP:REDLINK guidelines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, I apologize for not being able to find the talk page when you first wrote about it. On Kendall's blog it shows 251, which is why I changed the beginning to say over 250 rather than have to constantly update the number as more breweries open. He also says "Our information is based on the Washington Liquor Control Board’s list of licensed breweries." The beer commission does not update things very well as they are funded by a small beer tax and have few staff, so I would trust his number over theirs but it is possible that neither is accurate. Some of the breweries listed use blogs as a reference and there hasn't been a problem. Plus the existence of a brewery can easily be verified by checking various beer rating websites without having to have in-depth coverage, but it seems silly to list links to every brewery's ratings on various sites just to show that they exist. 2601:8:9600:1B00:D905:18AE:9205:BB4B (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I too think that if a reliable reference shows that a brewery actually exists, that's good enough for inclusion in the list, and a separate article about the particular brewery should not be required. And I would consider the Washington Beer Blog, and RateBeer and Beer Advocate, as reliable. We want to make sure that the list only includes real breweries, but they don't have to be notable to be included in a list or article. As far as the red links go, they should be limited to breweries that are actually notable, per the red link guidelines, although that can be somewhat of a judgement call. "P.S." Here's a pretty good reference for Postdoc Brewing Co., on Crafting a Strategy: "Congratulations Postdoc Brewing" — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: IP's comment that the Beer Commission is understaffed or whatever. Nope. I'm almost done cleaning up the data and it turns out the two lists mostly agree, it;s about 250 or so. Mostly it's a matter of how you choose to count breweries that have multiple locations. Elysian has 5, but one of them is production only, 4 are brewpubs. Is Elysian 5 breweries? Or four? Or one? We need to decide how we count. That's why I'm leaning on counting how many licenses the WSLCB has issued. It's unambiguous. Hopefully. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Draft:List of breweries in Washington is a draft of what this would look like with all 281 licensed breweries. I've requested data on annual barrels produced, currently and historically. I think this could be used, along with location data, to produced some nice maps and graphs. The list needs some cleanup to disambiguate multiple licensees, like Elysian and McMannis. Are there any objections to redefining the list this way? It is much longer, but it's not indiscriminate, so it's maintainable and verifiable, which I think is the main issue. If a brewery becomes unlicenced, but still has an article due to Wikipedia notability, it should be moved to a defunct section below the list. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done. There might be better ways to show the 6 McMannis or Ram Brewery locations than to have both the address and the geocoordinates listed. We could leave out the street addresses. Note that some chains have more outlets than licenses, and sometimes more licenses than brepubs, depending on how they sell their beer. But regardless, this is how many licensed breweries exist. When I get ahold of annual barrels produced data, and lists of defunct breweries, I think this list will start to look more interesting. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Expanding to all licensed breweries in Washington

OK, now somebody objects. IronGargoyle (talk · contribs) says listing every licensed brewery violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I think keeping the street addresses could be interpreted as a "resource for conducting business" but I already removed them and only kept the coordinates to disambiguate multiple locations. I keep re-reading the rules at "Wikipedia is not a directory" and I don't see anything which says we can't list all the licensed breweries. Using the WSLCB license as the criterion is a clear bright line for inclusion, easily verified, which avoids creating an indiscriminate list. The benefit is we get a list which is at last maintainable. Maybe someone can tell me which directory rule it violates. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

(1) I'm looking at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and I don't see how that applies to this question. I don't think the expanded version of the article here is a directory created from a directory, and I don't see how it goes against the guideline. (2) The purpose of this article is to list breweries in Washington, and the more the merrier. But to make sure that the breweries really exist and are not erroneous entries in the list, we would want one or more reliable, third-party references. So, what's the reference here? The Washington Beer Blog, the state beer commission, both of those, or what? And, are there one or more footnotes indicating that? (3) Personally I'm not a big fan of the coordinates. I think that column could be removed. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

My source for the 281 licensed breweries is the public records index at the WSLCB, specifically Washington Domestic and Microbreweries (Excel), which is an Excel spreadsheet with an incorrect .asp extension. You have to change it to .xls to read it. But other than that it's the authoritative source on which breweries are licensed. Hopefully the WSLCB webmaster will fix the links on their website to resolve any confusion. The Beer Blog and the Beer Commission lists mostly jibe with the WSLCB, but they have numerous cases where they list breweries no longer licensed, or licensed under a new name, or multiple brewpubs operated under the license of one brewery, and even errors the other way listing only one brewery which actually has multiple licenses. So they are inferior to the WSLCB source. It is footnoted in the first sentence; it could be repeated at the top of the list.

The point of the coordinates (and/or the street address) is to indicate companies which have multiple licenses, which helps to show the scale of their operations. For example, Ram Breweries, which has no article, is a substantial concern probably deserving of more attention, but you only note that by seeing their six licensed breweries in Washington.

If I can get the annual total production, we could use that number and ignore how many or how few breweries it takes to make that. Six locations making 5,000 barrels is less important than one location making 100,000.

The problem with the more the merrier is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. You never know when to stop adding to the list. The license criterion avoids that pitfall, as well as avoiding the directory problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The norm for all these lists has been evidence of notability. It doesn't need a Wikipedia article per say, but it does need some evidence that one is possible. Some of these breweries are large, sure, but a lot are fundamentally small local businesses. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not the issue. If you're referencing them to something that is basically a directory, that is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I'm sorry but the guidelines say no such thing.

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article says the exact opposite of what you just said, "the norm for all these lists has been evidence of notability". If you look at the actual list guidelines, the criteria here are #2 and #3 at WP:CSC, specifically "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." This is a complete list of every brewery in Washington, as I have been saying.

By the way, I know have the total number of barrels produced for these breweries for the last 5 years, so we can now show a complete table with comparative outputs, and create a graphical map with the output statistics. I think it's shaping up quite well. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the entries in the list do not have to be notable. Per the Notability guidline, "These 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 guideline). So the remaining question is, what reliable sourcing is necessary to establish that each brewery actually exists? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've updated Draft:List of breweries in Washington with pretty much the full data set I have from the WSLCB. I don't think "exists" is a criterion we can define. If you have brewery equipment, does your brewery exist? If you brewed some beer 5 years ago, and plan to brew more next year, do you exist? If you're running an unlicensed bootleg brewery, do you exist? I don't think we will ever agree on that. We can agree on whether a brewery has a license or not, and we can verify it. That's the beauty of that criterion. One limitation is that a few of these licenses never get used: they get a license, but never get the rest of their brewpub or brewery off the ground. So their production remains 0.

To me that's an interesting story: we have a lot of breweries, but only 4 or 5 of them actually make much beer. The other 260-270 of them brew between nothing and a pittance. Many recognizable names with many locations, like McMenamins or The Ram, have a negligible beer output. Take a look at what we have over at Draft:List of breweries in Washington and see what you think about what we should display on the list. One option would be to list the largest 100, say, or 50. But I say, if we're going to do that, why be coy? Just name all 281 of them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(1) I think it would be good to exclude breweries that have not sold any beer commercially. If you're building your brewery, or you plan on selling your first beer in three months, then you haven't sold any beer commercially, so you're not a brewery yet, but you can be added to the article when the first keg rolls out the door. And if you got a license, but then the financing fell through, so you gave up, you're not a brewery. But I'm not sure offhand of the best way to figure out which those are. (2) How big or small they are -- what their output is -- doesn't matter, in my opinion. The largest few breweries sell most of the beer. That's somewhat interesting, but I'm all for including the medium sized, small, and tiny ones. Looking at the current craft beer scene, those can be just as important as the biggies. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If you only count the ones paid taxes to the WSLCB on the sale of at least 1 barrel of beer in 2014, the number drops from 281 to about 255. We can subtract about 15 from that number if we consolidate The Ram, Elysian, etc. and group them as a single brewery. So the definition could be "licensed, active breweries".

I'd like to make a sortable table that includes Name, City, number of locations, and production for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and total. Defunct breweries which could meet the criteria for article notability, or already have articles, can be listed in a section below the main list, or included in the main list but marked as defunct. Objections? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable to me. I'd vote for putting defunct breweries into a separate section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering now if 0 production in 2014 is a good enough reason to list a brewery as inactive. Big Al Brewing was producing steadily for 2010-2013, then seems to have stopped. Their web blog hasn't been updated for over a year. But can Wikipedia declare them dead? Maybe we should leave them on the main list until a third party source announces they've closed. Or then WSLCB updates the license data, probably next year, they'll show up as discontinued. See latest draft. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, leave 'em on then. I'd say call them on the phone and ask them how late they're open today, but that would be original research, and I'm only half kidding. Meanwhile, I wonder what any other interested editors think about all this. @IronGargoyle:, what are your thoughts? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Here's another point to consider. It seems to me that a determined person who was willing to spend some time at it would be able to find stand-alone footnotes for many of the breweries, using Google or another web search site. That would make the article even better, in my opinion. To avoid so-called citation spam, the breweries' own website, Facebook page, etc. should not be used for this. If a brewery has its own Wikipedia article, finding a footnote for it would be a bit redundant, but some of the breweries without their own articles already have references of this type. Here's the type of thing I'm talking about. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's how we should handle redlinks. here's the Tableau workbook I've been doing this with. There's still errors in the data. It's the license numbers that are wrong on one of my tables, giving us the wrong city. I'm fixing them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as the red links, I would vote for getting rid of them in this case. Unless you're thinking that certain breweries without articles seem particularly notable, in which case red links would be appropriate. Anyway, for any entry in the list, having a reference is better than not having a reference. But that's for optional extra credit, in my view. I think you're doing the research to establish that the breweries exist, although once again the meaning of existence is somewhat ambiguous. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, now this version of the draft has the cities corrected and the numbers formatted. The current draft doesn't do anything new with the redlinks or the footnotes that we're not already doing with the live list. So it can be left as it is and fixed later. I'll await further comments and error corrections. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: I definitely suggest adding a sentence or two at the beginning of the Breweries section, and, at the end of that, one or more footnotes that reference the source or sources that you used to create the list. That will make it much more obvious what the references are for the list. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

New expanded version

I've gone live with this version of the list, limited by the two criteria of a current license and at least 1 barrel reported to the WSLCB in 2014. I've left in place the redlinks and the footnotes used to justify the potential for an article. There was some suggestion that we should eliminate those, though.

If the list is too long, we could consider some other arbitrary limit, such as 100 barrels or 500 barrels to keep it from being too extensive. But I don't see a problem, since the list is well defined and maintainable, and includes encyclopedic data on relative production over time.

The next improvement could be to locate founding dates for each of the breweries.

Also, articles should be written on Pike Brewing Company, Ram Restaurant & Brewery, and Elliott Bay Brewing, among others. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Rogue Ales?

Rogue Ales (a chain based in Oregon) is listed as "dubious" in the latest version. I'm not convinced that it should be listed in the defunct brewery section — they appear to operate the Issaquah Brewhouse which from net searches (I'm not local to there) appears to be still operating. But perhaps they brew in Oregon and import to Washington? In any case I think we need some evidence that that particular brewhouse is notable, rather than just being part of a notable chain that happens to operate in Washington. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Their website says, "Acquired by Rogue Ales in 2000, Issaquah Brewhouse continues to produce its own specialty brews..." so that would seem to meet our criteria. The WSLCB data says it's license # 78867 "Issaquah Brewpub 35 WEST SUNSET WAY STE C ISSAQUAH". The address matches the one on the Rogue Ales site. So we should remove Rogue from the inactive list, and maybe redirect Issaquah Brewpub to Rogue Ales, since they're a subsidiary. Or the list entry should say "Issaquah Brewpub (owned by Rogue Ales)" This list doesn't take into account ownership; it just lists anybody brewing in Washington. We could add an owner column to the list, if we can find enough data on which are locally owned and which are chains. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Big Al

Did anyone ever call the brewery? They appear to be active on Twitter still. I would be surprised if they closed their doors with the Tutta Bella deal and all. Cptnono (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I confirmed that they are still operating. Had a nice peanut butter stout at the brewery last night.Cptnono (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That kind of ignores the verifiability and original research policy. We do know they didn't brew any beer in 2014, though perhaps they resumed in 2015? Do you know if they brewed it there? For purposes of making this list maintainable, I think we should stick with the latest data available from the WSLCB, so that we can be consistent across all breweries in the state, and present a meaningful snapshot. Rather than mix 2014 data for some breweries and 2015 for others. Since this isn't a directory or shopping guide, it's of no consequence for an encyclopedia to be only up to data as recently as 2014 -- that's pretty recent in terms of the big picture. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't at all. We do not have a single source saying they are out of business. We actually have the responsibility of editorial discretion and it shows that they are certainly still in business and brewing plenty. I don't know why there is a question to how much they made in 2014 but it is obvious that they made beer. Adding incorrect information to a list is not why we have certain standards while editing.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As I think about it more, I have been less than impressed with WSLCB's errors. The Issaquah Brewhouse one was an easy fix. Big Al's is obviously a miss. Maybe we need to take it to RSN. I think that would be a little extreme but I am uncomfortable putting so much faith in one source.Cptnono (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no error on the Issaquah Brewhouse. That is the name on their license. Their owner has a different name. This article doesn't say Big Al is out of business. It says this is a list of breweries that reported the taxable sale of at least one barrel of beer in 2014. It lists Big Al as "inactive" because it doesn't meet that definition.

If you want to propose a new definition for this list, please do, but it should be a definition that we can apply meaningfully across the board. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, the word "former" was used under the Inactive breweries section; I fixed it to match the main list. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The definition was only changed because we are over relying on a source that obviously has issues. Issaquah Brewhouse is fine now but anyone who has had a beer in the Seattle area or reads sources knew how to fix it before there was even a discussion here. Big Al's is obviously still operating. I'm even fairly confident that Pyramid still does some brewing at their Ale House but I need to look at sources.

Calling this a list of licensed breweries while ignoring one that has and still is fully operational is weird. You are incorrectly using a source to not include a brewery. I am trying to wrap my head around it. Is it because the source has been good in other aspects? Your reasoning relies heavily on protocol but it is not helping Wikipedia. It goes far enough that it confusses the reader.Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually forget all that, it turns out that it is listed right at the webpage. Open up file "Washington Domestic and Microbreweries". So I will put it where it belongs. I apologize that I can't find barrels produced in '14. I'll leave it up to you if we do a footnote or a question mark. Nice work on the list. I especially like the maps. Good thing there are more articles to write.Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Pyramid is also on the list. I thought the tanks in the Ale House gave it away but whatevs.Cptnono (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of breweries in Washington. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505011756/http://www.beertown.org/craftbrewing/statistics.html to http://www.beertown.org/craftbrewing/statistics.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Mount Vernon?

@Everorange: Hello! With this edit, you added a brewery called "Brewing-Mount Vernon". (1) I'm doing a web search, and I don't see a brewery by that name. (2) In these articles, each brewery must have a footnote that's a third-party reference, such as a news story about the brewery (not the brewery's own website or social media account) -- or the brewery must have its own Wikipedia article. But focusing on point (1), what's the exact name of the brewery you intended to add? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought that was the name. I just grabbed it off one of the hyperlinks. https://washingtonbeer.com/breweries/

It seemed like there were a lot more on that list than there were on the page, did I misread something? Everorange (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Everorange: Looking at that page on the WA Brewers Guild website, the name of the brewery is "192 Brewing", and they're located in Mount Vernon. So, your intentions were good, but the entry you added was not accurate. That's why there's a guideline that each entry in the list should have a footnote referencing a news story or other secondary source about the brewery (again, not the brewery's own website or social media page). The exception is breweries that have their own Wikipedia article, because you can click through to those and see multiple footnotes. If you look at this article, you'll see that all the entries in the list follow this guideline. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Everorange: As an example, I just added Old Stove Brewing, here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification, that makes more sense. I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia so I appreciate the explanation! Everorange (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)