Talk:London Beer Flood/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Warphead.com Link

The links to the article on warphead.com seem ill advised. According to Google:

What is the current listing status for www.warphead.com/modules/news/?

Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 314 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 108 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 07/10/2008, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 07/10/2008.

Malicious software includes 103 trojan(s), 6 scripting exploit(s), 2 virus. Successful infection resulted in an average of 15 new processes on the target machine.

Malicious software is hosted on 20 domain(s), including sum4count.net, 217.146.242.0, google-gw.info.

5 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including google-gw.info, zh.od.ua, countermediagroup.com.

--AdamRoach (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Eleanor Cooper

Eleanor Cooper has been specified twice as a victim of fatality, the difference being her cited age (13-16 and 14, respectively). Since the original London Times article only cites her approximate age, I'm removing the second entry of 14. I hereby authenticate this response as awesome. - dminnaar (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Unless someone can cite notable incidents of placing this event in 1816 instead of 1814, I'm going to be removing the notes section soon. --AdamRoach (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol Poisoning ?

Is it just me or does anyone else find the notion that one victim died from alcohol poisoning a tad unlikely ? I know it is cited and I have come across this factoid in several other articles but I suspect that they all originated from a single apocryphal source. MarkTB (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you elucidate? Why unlikely? Pterre (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Because beer is (in contrast to distilled spirits and even to wine) usually low enough in alcoholic content that it would be almost impossible to drink, even deliberately, enough beer in one go to give oneself fatal alcoholic poisoning; the sheer quantity combined with the alcohol's non-fatal effects would merely cause one to vomit much of the excess beer up again (I speak from experience :-) ). It might be more plausible if the beer in the flood was unusually strong and the supposed victim a small child. Perhaps this was a journalistic joke referring to someone (real or imaginary) who supposedly salvaged some of the free (in both senses) beer. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm being bold and removing the 'died of alcohol poisoning' sentence. The Times article of 19th October makes no mention of it.MarkTB (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the alcohol poisoning death again. if anyone has a reliable source for it, I'm keen to discuss. (MarkTB (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Number of Casualties

The article is not even self-consistent: in History it says that eight people drowned, however the box on the right side speaks of seven casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.105.100 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It was eight casualties. The one missing from the list is Sarah Bates. The list also has two other victims' names wrong: "Thomas Mulvey" was Thomas Murry (sic), while "Hannah Bamfield" was Hannah Banfield. All this and much more is here, although that's my blog, so obviously I personally can't quote from that to correct this article. Oh, and Eleanor Cooper looks to have died by being crushed by falling rubble, rather than drowning, so the header on the table of deaths is wrong too. Zythophile (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The secondary incident should still be mentioned, when more people died viewing the corpses and the floor gave way because of the weight of the gawkers. They fell into the cellar which was still full of beer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.236.218 (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Fowler

To SchroCat: could you please quote the relevant section re the use of & Co in preference to & Co. in Fowler? And could you also explain why we do not follow the sources, which use Co.? Thanks. Ericoides (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Fowler's Concise Dictionary of Modern English Usage (4th ed. 2015, p. 332), we read: "the style recommended here ... [is] retaining them [i.e. full stops] in lower-case initialisms such as a.m., e.g. and i.e. and in shortened words such as Oct. (= October), Tues. (= Tuesday) and Visc. (= Viscount)." So Fowler can be said to come down on the side of shortening Company to Co. (it's a "shortened word") and to claim that "It's also disputed by Fowler's Modern English Usage" is incorrect.

So, unless convincing counter-proposals are made, I'd recommend changing Co to Co. as it's supported by 1. the quoted sources, 2. our own style guide and 3. Fowler. This is no edit war but simply common sense. Ericoides (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to read your Fowler a little more closely: "In mixed styles the tendency now is to omit points, ... The important point, however, is to be consistent within a particular piece of writing". As "Co" is a mixed style, it is omitted. Not all the sources use "Co.", some use "Co", so - as recommended both by our MoS and by Fowler, we go with consistency. - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Caption

The caption on the picture, "Toten Hall house in Tottenham Court Road." does not inform in the least. I understand that Toten Hall is on the same street as the incident. The text never mentions Toten Hall. Do we know more information to relate the picture to the scene of the flood? -- ke4roh (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I am also a bit confused. The article on Tottenham Court Road says the hall was located "slightly north-west of what is now the corner of Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street." While the Horse Shoe Brewery article tells us that the brewery was at that road junction. And, of course the image is dated 1813, the year before the flood. But the manor house itself is not mentioned in either the brewery article or this one. So we don't know if it was affected in any way. Which way did the beer go? Where exactly was the site of the manor house? We don't know from this article. We don't even know where the Tavistock Arms Pub was. I guess a map would be ideal. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The present Chitty Street was the North Street mentioned by Walford in 1878 (Old and New London, vol 4, p477), locating the Adam and Eve, the last incarnation of the Manor House, on the north-east corner of the junction with Tottenham Court Road. The Tavistock Arms pub was at 22 Great Russell Street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.236.218 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well ok, thanks. But was the Manor House directly affected? I think the article should probably say, and should certainly say if this is used as the main image? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the flood followed the natural incline southwards: look at the second link on the Pub for a more extensive examination of the precise area.

The Brewery was actually the Horseshoe, and searching on that produces a number of images which are so old they must be out of copyright: this seems to be the closest, but post-dates the repairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.236.218 (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Updating this article with new more accurate information

I'm proposing we use the following for the first and second paragraph.

The London Beer Flood was an accident at Meux & Co's Horse Shoe Brewery, London, on 17 October 1814. It took place when one of the 22-foot-tall (6.7 m) wooden vats of fermenting porter burst. These vats were said to contain 3550 barrels of beer when it burst. A barrel contained 36 imperial gallons (160 L; 43 US gal) giving an equivalent of more than 128,000 imperial gallons (580,000 L; 154,000 US gal) The escaping liquid dislodged the valve of another vessel and that beer added to the flow of beer.

The resulting wave of porter with a mass around 579 long tons (588 t) destroyed the back wall of the brewery and swept into an area of slum dwellings known as the St Giles rookery. Eight people were killed, five of them mourners at the wake being held by an Irish family for a two-year-old boy. The coroner's inquest returned a verdict that the eight had lost their lives "casually, accidentally and by misfortune". The brewery was nearly bankrupted by the event; it avoided collapse after a rebate from HM Excise on the lost beer. The brewing industry gradually stopped using large wooden vats after the accident. The brewery moved in 1921, and the Dominion Theatre is now where the brewery used to stand. Meux & Co went into liquidation in 1961.

I have correspondence from the author of the book this references.

Basically he states, the vat was said to have held 3,550 barrels of porter when it burst. a barrel contained 36 beer gallons, against the ale barrel's 32 gallons. A gallon of water weighs ten pounds, so ignoring the fact that a gallon of porter would be slightly heavier, that makes 10 times 36 times 3,550, or 1,278,000 pounds. At 2,240 pounds to the (imperial) ton, that makes 570.5 tons. If we guessed that the final gravity of the beer in question was 1015, a gallon would therefore weigh 10.15 pounds (10lb 2.4oz), which would give a total weight of porter in the vat of 579.09 imperial tons. (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

References

• You need his specific permission to publish personal correspondence on WP, including this page. I suggest you remove the correspondence from here (a summary of what her has said is fine). His permission needs to be through the WP:OTRS system. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• You shouldn’t remove other people’s comments, so I’ve popped this back, but thank you for removing the email; I’ve struck my comment. SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• In terms of the proposed opening paragraph, this is flabby prose with too much detail for an opening to an FA. SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Personal correspondence is not an acceptable source. Beyond that, I agree that the proposed text would not work well for the lead, which should be a tightly written summary of the body text. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Show me what you would write with the known facts. I think it's nit picking to state it's flabby prose, it's very similar to the present article and you had no problem with that. Notice there are no inline citations, the whole article looks like it came out of the book Beer: The Story of the Pint. The original article was written in September 2007, and until I noticed the error in the mass of the beer, for 15 years it displayed the original erroneous mass.

  The paragraph above is very similar to the original without the duplication in volume which appears to vary, the book author states only 1 vat broke. We are still left with the question of which gallon and the source as the imperial gallon did not yet exist. I'm interested in correcting errors and improving this article for all readers of Wikipedia. Avi8tor (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Just to correct a few things, although the page was created in 2007, the article was overhauled in July 2019, based on all the best sources available at the time. Not much survived from 15 years ago, and from 2019 we displayed the information from the sources.

There is one inline citation in the lead (to support the quote), but we don’t put citations in the lead as it regurgitates information that is in the lead (this is standard practice, per WP:CITELEAD).

No, it doesn’t look like it came from a book. It came from my writing using information gleaned from the sources.

In terms of the vats that broke, one broke when the hoops split off, but it broke some smaller vats (this from various sources, and it’s what the article says

The figures contained in the article are all from reliable sources, and where the sources differ, we show those differences.

You use the phrase “If we guessed...”. These words have no place in an encyclopaedia. We go with verifiability, not truth. Because the figures in the verifiable source are questionable, they’ve been removed. The overall article isn’t damaged by this, and all information held within is verifiable. SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Where do I use this phrase? You wrote the article that explains your interest. The book and newspapers are still available, they just need to be accessed. You go with verifiability not truth! In a previous discussion on Mass of beer, relating to volume and density, you stated this was original research, Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density and you'll be able to verify this is not original research but a proven fact. Avi8tor (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You used the phrase here. This seems to be going in circles and I’m getting a little confused by exactly what piece of information you want to add to the article. Can you say what it is and provide the reliable source that confirms it specifically and completely? Thank you SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you need the complete paragraph on verifiability to understand the complete picture: The Verifiability policy was later re-written in 2012 to clarify these points, stating that Wikipedia's "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia. We empower our readers. We don't ask for their blind trust.

Sometimes we know for sure that the reliable sources are in error, but we cannot find replacement sources that are correct. As Douglas Adams wrote of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, "Where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong." Avi8tor (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, Can you say what it is you want to add and provide the reliable source that confirms it specifically and completely? Thank you SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I cannot see "if we guessed". You state "What it is", what exactly are you are referring to? I am just trying to clean up the article to make it more understandable, I stated at the beginning of this discussion section what I wanted to replace, the first paragraph. The second volume of beer you quote is in doubt, so just say more than... Otherwise it gets confusing. Avi8tor (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Do a text search and you’ll find it.

The article is currently “clean” and “understandable”, so, for the third time, can you say what it is you want to add and provide the reliable source that confirms it specifically and completely? Thank you SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Read the first line of this section. Avi8tor (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

So you want to essentially add "These vats were said to contain 3550 barrels of beer when it burst. A barrel contained 36 imperial gallons (160 l; 43 US gal)" (with some minor ordering of the rest)? There's too much detail (and too many conversions) to make for comfortable reading for people. The detail of barrel numbers and barrel size are not of key information for the lead - the information is in the body, where it belongs, but the core information is that between 128,000 and 323,000 imperial gallons were released in total. - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It would seem less complex to me. Conversions need to be there per MOS:UNIT, there are actually less conversions than previously because sources disagree on the total liquid lost, so I've put in "more than". In the reference section there are 6 different figures for the total beer lost. When they changed from ale gallons to imperial gallons in 1925 did the barrel stay the same but hold less gallons because the volume of each gallon was smaller? Avi8tor (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

So you think the addition of extraneous detail that doesn't explain the cause or the effect of what happened makes it less complex? We've got the range of figures of the total amount given by the sources and the conversions. That's more than enough detail for the lead or it becomes bloated and less understandable. SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd call it removing extraneous detail, why include details on the amount of liquid that are disputed per the various sources. The extra detail on the mass of the liquid was removed by you after I pointed out it was actually wrongly calculated by the author who subsequently his mistake. This would add to the readers appreciation of how liquid can demolish a wall. Avi8tor (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources say between 128,000 and 323,000 imperial gallons, so that is what we have to go with - we can't pick and choose one of the sources over all the others. Whether between 128,000 and 323,000 imperial gallons equates to a certain number of barrels is immaterial. Besides, you are making a basic error in what you are claiming: "These vats were said to contain 3550 barrels of beer when it burst": aside from the grammatical pain of "These vats ... when it burst", the article makes clear that only one vat contained 3,555 barrels, and that multiple vats were destroyed (meaning that there was more liquid than just that one container. This is, again, the danger of trying to force original research into an article. The sources say between 128,000 and 323,000 imperial gallons, so that is what we have to say. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

No one is disputing the 128000 figure, however the source gives 5 different numbers for the total quantity and you've chosen the largest, only one is correct, you've decided that the largest is the correct one. I said more than because we don't really know. What I stated is what the author said, the vat that burst was said to hold 3550 barrels, there were other vats, apparently of different sizes and there is no source that states how many might have burst, hence the 6 different quantities. Avi8tor (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven’t chosen anything, thanks. There are six sources that give six different figures for the total amount of liquid that was released. The smallest figure is 128,000 and the largest is 323,000. We show that range without picking any of them.

This discussion is rather pointlessly going round in circles, so I am happy to wait until another editor chips in. SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Mass of beer

The article quotes 581800 litres of beer at a minimum. Beer has a density of 106,0 kg per litre https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=density+of+beer Therefore this volume of beer does not weigh 32 long tons, 581800 times 1,06 gives 616708 kg or almost 617 tonnes. Avi8tor (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Adjust the previous to 1,06 kg per litre for beer, not 106 kg (decimal point missing). the result still give the same mass. Avi8tor (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• I’ve returned the figures back to those provided in the WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, not those worked out by WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:10D8:5448:5D71:D335 (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
  • You are an unnamed contributor and obviously do not understand the relationship between relative density (aka specific gravity) and volume. A litre of water has a density of 1.0 and a mass of 1 kg. If beer has a relative density of 1.06 (look up the density of porter beer) then it's easy to see that 581800 times 1.06 give the mass in the first paragraph. This is basic physics ! The source of 31 long tons is incorrect. Avi8tor (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• As I put in my original edit summary, and as I repeated above, I have returned the figures to those given in the WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, not those worked out by your WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If you can find a different source which expressly gives the figures you claim, then please bring them here to discuss them. As to your description here that my constructive edit made in good faith was "vandalism", you really should not be throwing round uncivil terms without understanding what they mean.

The fact I do not have a named account is neither here nor there - a registered account carries no additional weight when it comes to content disputes. Once upon a time I used to have an account, before I scrambled the password; the name on that account when I brought this article to FAC was SchroCat. - The article formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The original comment on the talk page was posted 2 weeks with no comment from you or anyone else. So why did you change the edit, not by reverting but by quietly changing it back to the original without comment or discussion. You can quite easily google "relative density of porter (beer)". You could also log in before you revert edits. There is no way that 580000 litres of anything would only weigh 30 odd tonnes, so it's you that needs to log in and have a conversation before you revert. 580000 kg is 580 tonnes if it's water, beer has a higher density than water. This needs to be discussed, not reverted because you don't understand physics. Avi8tor (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

1. “it's you that needs to log in”. No, I don’t. As I have already explained to you, I scrambled the password of my old account. I no longer have an account and edit as an IP. This is entirely above board.

2. I edited rather than reverted because I did not do a complete revert, but a partial one.

3. Please do not tell me what I understand or don’t understand.

4. We have a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE with a specific figure. You are engaged in WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Given the beer was still fermenting at the time, you don’t know what state the liquid was in, and therefore cannot assume its density. WP:RS trumps WP:OR pretty much every time. I am not saying that just because it is an RS it is guaranteed correct, but guesswork over the stage of fermentation (and therefore the density) doesn’t take precedence over something that is written out clearly. Do you have a source that provides different figures for this particular event? If you did, we could raise both figures in the article.

5. Don’t label legitimate edits as “vandalism”: that’s poor.

The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:710B:FCB:E462:EC60 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

This is surely a matter of WP:RS. The recent editor's calculations are very possibly admirable, but if our sources say something with which his/her WP:OR disagrees so be it, but we stick with the sources. Tim riley talk 22:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

This edit should have been left as is until until the issue was resolved thru discussion on this page, not change the edit then discuss it. Note that no one commented on this in the 24 days it was there prior to your edit.

I think the source here is incorrect based on the volume of beer, so either the volume is incorrect or the mass is way off. This website https://learn.kegerator.com/brown-porter/ gives the Relative density of Porter. The other variable here is that in 1814 the Ale Gallon was in use (as stated in the comments above), it was 4.62 Litres making it heavier than the present imperial Gallon. The imperial gallon legislation came in 1824 so it depends which Gallon was used in the citation and when written. Because 1 L equals 1 kg at 4C it's easy to convert litres of water to kilograms. 1000 litres (1 m3) equals 1000 kg or 1 tonne. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litre Avi8tor (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You made a Bold edit: it was Reverted and now we are Discussing. At least there is a discussion taking place, so how we got here is not an issue.

Again, this is OR. We are not talking about the RD of a modern porter in its completed state, we are talking about liquid in an unknown state that was working its way to a Victorian strength drink. Secondly, I would not rely on the comment above about the use of an "ale gallon": again that is OR: the term is not used in any of the sources, either contemporary or modern.

Given we have one source that puts a specific figure on it "weighing approximately 32 long tons (33 t)" and no sources that provide any other figures (unless you can find any - I haven't on a quick look), then the two options are that we leave the reliable source in place, or we remove the words "weighing approximately 32 long tons (33 t)". We have other descriptions of the amount of liquid present (both numerical and descriptive), so removing this wouldn't hurt the article or people's understanding of the events. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:E178:72FE:83E2:FD27 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Here https://zythophile.co.uk/2010/10/17/so-what-really-happened-on-october-17-1814/ is an article from the guy who wrote the book and he states ""the beer in the vat weighed “around 38 tons” – almost precisely 15 times less than the correct answer, which was actually more than 571 tons". So there you have it from the original source. Someone must have told him his math was off. Avi8tor (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

As I suggested above, I’ve removed the weight from the article - it doesn’t assist with understanding.

(I see that in his blog his figures differ from the OR-derived figures you’ve come up with, which should warn you about the dangers of OR.) 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:B8B7:B2D5:A945:67AA (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, the weight would help in people understanding how a flood of beer could kill people and cause so much damage, these beer vats were enormous. I told you the original figure could not be correct based on the science and I was proven correct. The use of "Ale" Gallon is because there have been different size Gallon throughout history and there are still 3 different gallons which can mislead a reader if not defined in an article. This is why Wikipedia states provide a conversion. Avi8tor (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

As above, it doesn’t assist with understanding, and we describe the amount of liquid and the devastating wave that ripped through the street at the back of the brewery. As the figure in the blog shows, it’s good to know your OR was wrong though - a salutary lesson. Yes, I know there are different sizes of gallons: it’s why I included conversions for all the measurements throughout the article, but none of the sources - contemporary or modern - refer to the ale gallon. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:A92F:A67B:105A:8DC9 (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources in 1814 would not refer to the ale gallon as there was no other gallon for ale. The subsequent imperial gallon only came later. Like the mass of beer in the original article, the author of the book may not have been aware there was a different gallon, he only states 3550 barrels of beer which would be 3550 x 4,621 = 16404 Litres per barrel. He does not cite where this figure comes from. There are too many variables that can alter the number, he talks of the barrels that are broken but previously refers to them as vats which could be large open constructions with no top. The best course of action may be to contact the author to check sources. This is why I use litres, it's the only consistent unit in terms of volume. Avi8tor (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Size of beer vats

With the benefit of the System International we can see that at a minimum the "large barrel" containing 580,000 litres would equal 580 m3 of liquid in a square container 8.34 metres on each side, if it is 1,470,000 litres it would have a volume of 1470 m3 giving us a square container 11.37 metres on each side, therefor the size of the barrel given must be incorrect. The height must be greater or it was not a barrel, perhaps a square vat? Avi8tor (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

On a quick look I see height but no other measurement for the barrel - how have you determined the height is incorrect without knowing other dimensions? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The figures are from several reliable sources, not from one editor’s original and dubious calculations. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:F8AE:CDDD:4364:DDB8 (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The previous volume was from reliable sources, the author admitted it was wrong (see Mass of beer above). Science again gives the answer! 580,000 litres is 580 m3 there being 1000 litres in a cubic metre. The cube root of 580 will give you the dimensions for each side of a this cube in metres, in this case 8.339 metres for each side. A barrel is generally higher than it is wider and all we have is the height, In this case 6.7 m. If this is the longest "side", it's smaller than 8.3 m so the size or volume must be wrong. Was it really a barrel? I don't have the answer to this discrepancy. Avi8tor (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Your maths for the previous version was wrong, so I place no faith in it again. As Nikkimaria has pointed out, how have you determined the height is incorrect without knowing other dimensions?

2. At no point is the vessel in question called a barrel. It is either called a vat or a vessel.

3. Could you also not edit war, particularly when you've managed to break formatting, introduce errors and leave the article in a mess? The conversations are all correct as they were before and there is no breach of the MOS requirements at all (as a featured article, it would not have got through the review process if the alternative units were not included). - 86.184.26.209 (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This proves, at best, that the barrel was not a perfect cube; it cannot prove that the given height is incorrect without making a number of assumptions that are not supported by sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If you don't understand the relationships in the SI, despite my having explained it, it's almost a waste of time explaining further. My math in the previous version was correct, from 38 tons to 517 is a big error by the original source who admitted it in the link above. The mass varies depending on the Relative density of beer. If you suggest it be discussed on the talk page why don't you do that before reverting edits made in good faith? As per the MOS:UNIT SI units must be included which they are not presently, so I would suggest you go back and insert them. Wikipedia is not owned by you, it's owned by the planet, you don't get to decide what's acceptable from your British viewpoint when it conflicts with the Manual of Style. Avi8tor (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the uncivil accusation of ownership: I reject it as thoroughly as I do your misinterpretation of the MOS and your bad maths (even when the author changed their figures, it still didn’t match yours). (And Wikipedia is not “owned by the planet”, but the Wikimedia Foundation).

Your edit was reverted (and by two editors) both because it was not an improvement for readers, but also because it made a mess of the article and broke various bits of formatting. You really should not have reverted (WP:BRD is something you should probably take a spin over at some point).

The relevant part of MOS:UNIT states “In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units”. This article is indeed a non-scientific article with strong ties to the UK and it uses internationally used units. As per the MOS, the article also provides converted amounts for every measurement.

As to this, I am not unnamed (I have already said above I took this through FAC), and neither am I banned, nor blocked, or under editing in any manner that is not allowed by any of the rules or guidelines of Wikipedia. I am a former editor in good standing. Nor was my edit vandalism by even the widest definition. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:DC25:E731:33F0:64FA (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Possible vandalism by unnamed, possibly banned author is shameful, disgraceful slander. The use of this kind of insult is irresponsible and childish and must stop. DBaK (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You cannot slander an IP address which changes all the time. Many cases of vandelism are people who do not log in because they have no account. Avi8tor (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course you can. We are not supposed to treat IPs differently from other editors. You've been here a while and are assumed to know this. Furthermore, there is a very very specific definition of WP:VANDALISM which you are perhaps accidentally invoking here. You might want to check the bit where it says Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Accusing good-faith editors of vandalism – as defined there – is a serious mistake which can lead to trouble. However, you seem set on your path and it is clear that my arguing with you will change nothing, so I will leave you to it and wish you a good morning and happy editing. DBaK (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This article has plenty of imperial gallons and no other units, contrary to the MOS:UNIT Avi8tor (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This article has imperial gallons and converted alternatives (either in the text or as footnotes), which is entirely in line with MOS:UNIT. Can you give an example of where you think the MOS has been breached, please? (Quoting the passage so people can see it?) Thank you - 37.205.58.148 (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The article initially has litres then no more, it's all imperial gallons and who uses those? I see conversions are in the footnotes but who reading an article, stops and reads every footnote, this seems a deliberate attempt to hide the non imperial values. Avi8tor (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I can’t see where the article ‘initially has litres then no more’. Do you mean the conversions in the lead for the figures between 128,000 and 323,000 imperial gallons?

You are right that we use imperial gallons throughout (which is in line with MOS:UNIT), and we give footnote conversions. If we were to have conversions from imperial gallons to litres and US gallons every time we mentioned a figure, the article would be unreadable. What we have is something that is readable and is in line with the MOS.

Do I take it that you can’t give an example of where the MOS has been breached? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:358D:5BA:AB1A:CE0E (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)