Talk:List of wineries in the Barossa Valley

Update

I have updated this list, adding a number of wineries, websites and 'icon wines' where possible. I removed one one or two wineries located in the Eden Valley region, which has a separate Wikipedia entry. I removed one 'winery' that is simply a production facility with no brands of its own. Please add and amend as necessary. AussieBoy 07:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 07:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have done some further updates and corrections. Always a work in progress! AussieBoy 07:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the external link column. The wikipedia is not a linkfarm or the white/yellow pages. Also, external links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia. For more information, please see WP:EL/WP:NOT. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dirk. I have read the guidelines you indicate and cannot see how they require the removal of the external links here. In fact, it appears to me that these guidelines require that these links be present. WP:EL states: "What should be linked: Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." I will reinstate the external links column. Without it, this table is greatly reduced in its utility. The table includes the "icon" wines of each winery, and internal links to the Wikipedia sites for these wineries, where these exist (I am considering writing some more of these). I would argue that wineries are in a unique position, in that, while they may be seen as manufacturing a product, that product, wine, has a special cultural history and significance (in Western culture, at least). It is, therefore, quite different from a list of, for example, shoe manufacturers. AussieBoy 11:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT a repository of links Really, I don't even see what the purpose of this page is for, have you considered that a category could work almost as well. With the current format the only additional information you're imparting is the signature wine, and an EL. Add to that the fact that most of these articles don't exist yet, and I think that this page missed on both WP:NOT and WP:CORP (as most of the members of the list don't have articles yet). I would suggest nominating this for AfD, I'll probably go ahead unless you have a convincing argument for keeping it.

Best of Luck,

Crazynas ^t 11:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not have strong views on this, but for now it looks like a good list to remind us to write articles on all the Barossa wineries or at least mention them somewhere else. A list of redlinks are good for that. A category of course can not have redlinks. --Bduke 12:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely why I started this article. I think the attitude towards its deletion is very closed minded. ◄scharks► 22:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think lists are meant for 'articles to be created', wikipedia has Wikipedia:Requested articles for that (and the articles that exist go into a category). Still, this article reads more like a google-result page on the search for wineries in the Barossa Valley, or like a page from the yellow pages and that was why I removed the external links-column from the site (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, I was arguing against deletion, not for the URL links, although I think the links are useful here as they are, for example, on the lists of scientific publications in chemistry. --Bduke 21:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not put lists up for deletion, but I still believe that none of these lists do not really have a function. The redlinked articles belong on the request page (they are there, right?) and existing articles in categories. Moreover, the external links do not comply with the policy WP:NOT#REPOSITORY; wikipedia is not the white/yellow pages. (Bduke, for a link to a scientific journal I would look for a Category:Scientific journals, and select the page of the journal from the category and scroll to the external link section). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia policy actually indicate that I should have put the "redlinked articles" on the request page? Please direct me to the appropriate policy and I will consider adding them if it is my responsibility. Presumably your reference to Wikipedia not being the White/Yellow Pages relates to the section in WP:NOT#REPOSITORY that states: "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." This really does not appear to fit this table very well at all. You also have simply not addressed my argument concerning the special cultural status of wine as a commodity, either. These wineries are businesses, yes, but the product, wine, occupies a highly esteemed cultural and even intellectual role, and the sites contain much information concerning variation in vintage conditions, detailed tasting notes, links to reviews on particular wines, and show awards. You could argue that all of this should be on Wikipedia, but it is clear that the individual wineries will collate these data much better on an ongoing basis. It seems very strange to me to leave this table on Wikipedia minus the links. Are any of the people participating in this debate (other than Scharks) actually knowledgeable about wine? I am a scientist with extensive knowledge of wine and believe that this table is very useful to other people interested in wine (and won't they be by far the main users of this page?). Note that the Barossa Valley is a high quality wine area in world terms, and the vast majority of these wineries produce red wine (mainly Shiraz-based) of very high quality. Another possibility may be to add this table (with the links) to the article on the Barossa Valley, which already has a small list of wineries. What do you think of this suggestion? P.S., perhaps the List of Songs About Masturbation should be deleted from Wikipedia as well (joke!)? AussieBoy 05:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't understand me wrong, I argue that 'list of' pages often do not comply with WP:NOT, they become lists of names, with a weblink and nothing else happens. I did not state the other options were governed by policies, but they are options that are not in violation with guidelines and policies. When you type "Stanley Lambert" in the searchbox on the left, you are brought to a page that says "No page with that title exists. You can create this page or request it". So I think that is the place where people would expect to request it, not on a list here; I think this list (and many, many others) should be incorporated in the request page.

This page is one of the better examples of a list page (I mean, this one is quite well organised). It has wikilinks to the pages and a weblink next to it (they often contain only an external link. Though, it still results in people being tunneled away from wikipedia, and I believe that the redlinks in this page are very quickly converted into bluelinks by starting the pages with:

{{|winerybox|owner = a|name=b|homepage=c}}
The x is a winery in the Barossa Valley.  The winery is owned by y.  Its specialities are z.

==external links== 
* weblink to homepage  

[[Category:Barossa Valley winery]]  

{{tl|Barossa Valley winery stub}}

Then all the pages are categorised and a list-page is not necessary. This goes for a lot of lists, and others are plain internet directories. (the winerybox is an example, probably needs the right box, but I do not know which one is appropriate here)

I will leave this list for now; I think the discussion whether or not 'list of' pages should be in the wikipedia should probably be held at a higher level. See you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:01, 16 March 2007 (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 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) 05:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong list description

Agne! As per your edits this is now a list of wineries in barossa that is listed in wikipedia, is that really what this article should be?? And if so the lead needs to be rewritten! Is this supposed to be a list of ALL wineries in Barossa or only the ones that are notable enough to have a page in wikipedia??? --Stefan ^talk 00:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to WP:SOFIXIT to not make this article an WP:ADVERT WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation. There is no reason for Wikipedia to be a business directory listing of non-notable wineries. The only tangible proof of that the wineries are notable is the existance of an article that passes WP:CORP. Obviously there are other Barossa wineries that are notable but don't yet have an article. However to be consistent, we should wait till the article is created. Limiting the list to only notable wineries not only makes this less of an WP:ADVERT WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation but also makes the article more encyclopedic and functional as a navigation tool. Granted, I still think this article has little encyclopedic value but it was my best effort to WP:SOFIXIT and clean up the most glaring issues. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but then it is A list of wineries in barossa that is listed in wikipedia, such a list have no value except as a navigational tool, a list that actually lists all the wineries in a region have in my opinion more encyclopedic value, what you are saying is that evey item in a list must be notable and I do not think that is what our policies and consensus states today. (I'm just trying to find out what our policies state, I do not really care either way, just as long as we are consistant and follow consensus, to me the featured list List of Project Runway contestants shows that consensus exists for having non notable items in a list, then consensus can always change) --Stefan ^talk 05:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like User:Ozwinebuff (and possibly as an IP before it) is doing strange reverting and mislabeling them as reverting vandalism. The work I did on this article likely will save it from being deleted outright at WP:AFD since it is a clear violation of WP:POV WP:ADVERT and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If he has issues with the edit, he should discuss it here. If he reverts again, I won't counter because, frankly, this would be excellent example to bring up at the WP:AFD of how Stefan's WP:SOFIXIT example will not work with dealing with these kinds of articles. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And it looks like this example has materialized. Very well, I will leave the reverting in place. I tried in good faith to fix the article and get it to conform to policy but...alas. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agne, it is absurd of you to say that you are saving this article from deletion. This article was put for deletion a couple of years ago and it was [roundly defeated]. Your edits constitute vandalism because they strip the article of interesting and useful content. Please go away and "save" something else.Ozwinebuff (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh I'm going to leave this article EXACTLY how is, don't worry. I made my good faith efforts in response to Stefan's good faith request that articles like this should be fixed rather than deleted. I tried to remove the glaring WP:POV, WP:ADVERT subjective WP:WINEGUIDE like listing and I tried to keep this article from being a WP:DIRECTORY in violation of Wikipedia policy. I also added a reference to this previously unreferenced article. But how can you WP:SOFIXIT an article when editors want to keep it in its original sorry state? Unexpectedly, this is proving my point so my good faith efforts turned up something worthwhile. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • I agree with Agne, to revert Agnes obvious good faith edit stating that he vandalised is disruptive! and not the way wikipedia should work. Issues like this should be take up on the talk page and discussed! All of you are edit warring, probably breaking WP:3RR and should stop and discuss! --Stefan ^talk 08:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Secondly Agne, you can not save a article from deletion by removing things that a article can not be deleted because of, such as WP:POV, WP:ADVERT and WP:WINEGUIDE. --Stefan ^talk 08:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of wineries in the Barossa Valley. 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/20141009204631/http://www.wineaustralia.net.au/en/wine-regions/barossa-valley-wineries.aspx to http://www.wineaustralia.net.au/en/wine-regions/barossa-valley-wineries.aspx

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) 11:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)