Adding a beer that already exists, but has changed

I have a specific issue with this (kind of the opposite actually) that could be addressed by the mods, it bothers me every time I visit the Jack's Abby page. There are multiple listings of Coffee Barrel Aged Framinghammer and Vanilla barrel Aged Framinghammer. I think the confusion is that the labels (from last years release) didn't say bourbon barrel aged but according to the brewery they all were. Same with the cherry Berliner Braun, they were all barrel aged.

Thanks!

 

While a different name usually indicates that the brewer views that beer as different, that the name remains the same does not imply the brewer views it as the same beer. Bar Fly, the beer in question, now specifies that it is aged in Bourbon Barrels, which is a clear distinction from the original batch. I think it's just a convention of how they label their beers. Hunahpu variants are still called Hunahpu, just with the extra information on the bottle indicating which barrels they used. Just trying to justify why I added Bourbon Bar Fly as a separate entry.

As a contradiction to the "new name-new beer" rule, Toppling Goliath released Light Speed recently, which is exactly the same beer as Millennium Falcon, but was never bottled and distributed. I could use some confirmation here, but my understanding is that the beer's name had to be changed for packaging due to copyright issues. In this situation, there beer has a new name, but is the same beer, so should it not be aliased?

I have submitted updates for Light Speed and the Vanilla Framinghammer that was mention previously by @IcemanCometh , but I often don't know if I'm just being overzealous in my desire for consistency and organization on this site. I realize that you're overwhelmed with the task of keeping up with these things, but is there any way that we can be told why our update was rejected? That way I don't keep using the same faulty logic on different beers?

 

A related question - What about a beer that is regularly sold in kegs and bottles but you find it on cask into which the brewer added some additional flavoring. For example - Flying Dog Doggie Style Pale Ale on cask with citra hops. What do folks do? Add or not add? Maybe I should just be satisfied that I had a very tasty beer for lunch

 

Somewhat Related: is there any way a user can distinguish what format they have in their W/G/FT? Case in point Black Note 750ml. Would love to narrow down who might have one or want one instead of having to post an ISO just to find out. (Unless this already exists?)

 

I figure I'd ask here instead of starting up a new thread. DuClaw's Colossus was just re-released for the first time since 2011, but the ABV has dropped from 21.92% to 17.3%? But the name has stayed the same and their website has no mention of the older ABV. I guess this beer would just have the brew years and ABV listed next to them like some beers have in their notes.

I was thinking that a 5% ABV change might be worth a new designation, with the 2006/2011 21.92% batches being retired, since there have major hiatuses between brews of this beer, and there being a new Colossus (2014) or Colossus (17.3%) beer added to show the difference.

 

Also adding a question to this thread rather than starting a new one. I read Todd's article, and I don't think it fully covers the question I have.

The beer in question is the Boulevard/Sierra Nevada collaboration, Terra Incognita. The beer is listed under Boulevard (who brewed the beer in 2013) the way all other collaborations are, with Sierra Nevada's name in the beer title. However, this year, Terra Incognita was released again, but brewed by Sierra Nevada. It's basically the same recipe (only difference is a lack of Brettanomyces in the 2014 version), but I wondered if the fact that it's brewed by a different brewer meant that the 2014 version should be listed under Sierra Nevada.

I would just add it, but the erroneous listings drive me just as crazy as the next guy. I don't want to be part of the problem.