Talk:De Koningshoeven Brewery

I'd like to propose renaming this article to "Brouwerij de Koningshoeven", inline with the other trappist breweries, to reflect the native name. Any nay-sayers, comments? A major update of the text is also on its way. Riflemann 15:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the article to the Dutch name. — goethean ॐ 18:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be moved back. There should be a dutch page with the dutch name. We dont have the "Germany" page under "Deutschland" so why should we be looking for Breweries under Brouwerij? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.169.81.252 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

While I do not agree on a personal level, I think that the anonymous user has a point. I'd like to point out that all other trappist breweries have been moved to the English translations of their names as well, so for the sake of consistency, this should be moved back to "Koningshoeven Brewery".--Fogeltje (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

abv

Just sitting down enjoying a pint of Dubbel and thought I would find out a bit more about the brewery. I notice that Dubbel is listed as 6.5% ABV but the bottle I have says 7%. Perhaps it has changed recently? Tony 20:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into DESTINATION PAGE. -- Mikebe 09:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As Quadrupel is no longer considered a style, but is rather the brand name of several beers, a separate article is no longer necessary. It was never considered a style in Belgium or the Netherlands and neither the BJCP nor the Brewers Association now consider it a style. The redirect should come here because this is the brewery that first made a beer with the name Quadrupel.

It is understood that there is some confusion about the term, primarily on commercial beer fan sites, however, as the role of Wikipedia is to explain and enlighten, giving the correct definition of the term is the correct way to deal with this confusion. Mikebe 11:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• disagree. This is unprecedented. Pilsener does not redirect to Pilsner Urquell. Style names may develop from brand names. "Quadrupel" is used in the brand names of US beers as well. The situation is fluid, so to speak. Allegations of "confusion" appear to be POV. 1Z 15:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pilsener is a widely recognised style, quadrupel is not recognised as a style by anyone. That quadrupel is used in brand names means nothing more than it is popular as a name. "Allegations" of confusion? No, fact. Mikebe 13:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• agree. The Quadrupel article is just a stub and placement within this article will provide better context for the subject. My stipulation is that the entire article should move, including all references to non-Belgium beer. Mikebe, if you wish to merge it and remove all references to non-Begium use of the term or American/British confusion using some wikipedia policy, than I vote to keep it a separate article.Beakerboy 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• agree. There is no authoratative source that confirms Quadrupel as a widely-recognised beer style. As it is primarily a brand name of Koningshoeven brewery, a redirect seems prefectly reasonable.Patto1ro 11:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree with User:Mikebe's and User:Patto1ro's agenda of cleansing Wikipedia of all American beer terms, or with the replacement of all external links with links to User:Patto1ro's website, which constitutes a serious conflict of interest. I don't see any other reason for merging the articles. — goethean ॐ 18:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That looks like 2 for and 2 against to me, how did that come to be a merge verdict? 1Z 09:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My vote doesn't count? Mikebe 09:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LaTrappeLogoColour.jpg

Image:LaTrappeLogoColour.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LaTrappeLogoColour.jpg

Image:LaTrappeLogoColour.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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 caution and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform the project members on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Monk's Table Beer

The John White article does state that the Enkel was the nmonk's table beer after 1980. It goes on to say that Enkel was then made available commercially. And that Enkel was replaced by Blond in the commercial range. But it does not say that Blond replaced Enkel as the monk's table beer. John White is, in my opinion, a pretty reliable source in this context.Patto1ro (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

But you reflexively deleted the whole passage, and not the one word you are compalining about. Editors are supposed to edit. 1Z (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I was complaining about the assertion that the monk's table beer was the Blond wasn't substantiated in the source. Now the passage agrees with the source. I'm not trying to be nasty, just striving for accuracy, Mr. Jones.Patto1ro (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that you are striving for accuracy. Please note that hitting the undo button tends not to engender either improved articles of warm affection from the editors affected. 1Z (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice beer the Enkel, BTW. John's description of it is very good: like a weaker version of the Tripel. Just about two years since John died. A sad loss.Patto1ro (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on De Koningshoeven Brewery. 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/20100305072032/http://www.whitebeertravels.co.uk/schaapskooi.html to http://www.whitebeertravels.co.uk/schaapskooi.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) 10:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)