Wiper and True - in need of a cleanup in the database

Similar to how Cloudwater was a few months ago, Wiper and True’s entries on Ratebeer are becoming a bit of a mess and I’d really like to clean them up, at least to maintain consistency with their naming scheme which is being fudged in quite a lot of the beers. As I’m not an admin I unfortunately can’t do anything about it, so would like some input from admins and hopefully someone can take care of it if they agree with this.

Wiper and True’s beer naming scheme for most of their beers is like this:
Wiper and True Style Name Beer Name (Batch ##)
Style Name is the bit written in slightly smaller letters above the actual Beer Name on the labels. Initially I didn’t think the style was important as part of the name, but after seeing the beer listing on their official website and seeing how they manage their beers on other sites, it seems they do consider this part of the name, so I feel we should too. It looks like about 50% of them are already named this way on Ratebeer. Also, this is actually relevant in a few cases, for example to distinguish the various versions of Hard Shake, where there are about three of each Sweet Stout and Imperial Stout.
The batch number would of course be optional and only needs to be used where relevant in the case of a recipe change (e.g. Mimosa?) or large ABV variance (e.g. Hard Shake / Imperial Hard Shake).

Looking at the brewery page now I can see quite a few have forgone the style name yet different batches are using it, this has led to people not realising they exist (presumably when looking at the alphabetical listing) and then they’ve put their rating under the wrong one (you can tell because they’re mentioning a batch number and/or ABV in their rating which corresponds to a different entry on Ratebeer). This is particularly noticeable on Hard Shake, both standard and Imperial versions.

Finally, I think we should use the word ‘and’ rather than ‘&’ as this is how they’re actually named and branded. Currently two beers fall foul of this.

Thoughts? If there is agreement from admins I can post a full list of every beer that would need editing (vast majority will be simple renames similar to the Cloudwater cleanup, a few may need ABVs or descriptions editing).

I cannot speak for W&T but I can for Cloudwater ; I’m part of production team. I notice a lot of errors in the input of our beers almost on a weekly basis. Please anyone DM me if you are unsure of anything on a CW beer we’re always happy to help any ratebeerian with rates and ticks.


I notice them too, I’m just a random person I’m not even affiliated with Cloudwater in anyway and it annoys me seeing the errors. If it’s a canned release of yours I always copy and paste the info from your website and include the promo shot of the can as a pic. I also tag the hops used.
Maybe you can provide some input in this thread too btw: Cloudwater NE DIPA Mosaic (Citra) because admins have been silent on that even though the evidence is pretty damning.

Back to W&T. I see today that an admin has silently edited a few of the Hard Shake variants I had issue with which I am grateful for, but has named them in the opposite way to what W&T do. It’s fine if you disagree with my proposal but I still feel there is a discussion to be had here as this hasn’t helped with the inconsistency one bit. If you want to do BeerName BatchNo StyleName then that’s absolutely fine but there are ~180 other beers that now need renaming to match… yeah I didn’t think that sounded so good, this is the reason I suggested we do it W&T’s way as we’re 75% of the way there already. I mean, is there a good reason to NOT do it their way?

1 Like

The cans are usually accurate, and we appreciate that. It’s the keg only releases that can be problematic as if the bar gets the name wrong and they don’t have font clip you get it wrong.
With regard to the NE dipa’s the keg only was a 12 hectolitre beer made primarily for MBCC17 : I notice brewdog also got that beer hence the rates and bd pic…
The canned version was a 72 hectolitre batch that used a new piece of kit a braukon hop gun which to me is a different beast to a standard dry-hop.
I understand in principle they seem like similar beers but they are different and perhaps I’m not explaining myself too well but they should not be merged as similar or overlapping ingredients do not produce the same beer. Cheers.

I agree with all your w&t naming conventions, and try to always add beers in that way. A few beers are hangovers from when they were a cuckoo at other breweries and IMO should be retired.

I have to say bit a number of users seem to have issues with what is and isn’t a beer’'s name. People seem to take random info from the pump clip and bodge it onto a name. Or just ignoring the format of existing beers.

Granted, it doesn’t help when bars get the names wrong.

(Waits for Admins to point out how they’ve had to clean up his new beers)