Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Wines task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Joy! It does exist!

Thanks for creating this project. I look forward to being a part of it. I do have one suggestion for the more wiki-code savvy. Can we have some sort Wiki-wine userbox for our pages? Agne 09:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive! EvilSuggestions 08:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Recruiting for Pinot Noir FA

I've looked through the Pinot Noir history and invited about 6 users to join the project and help get this article to FA. These were users who through looking at their other wine contributions, user page, and discussions appear to be interested in crafting great wine articles for Wikipedia. Hopefully a few of them will take the invite. :) I think I'll probably also take a look at the Sideways article for some interest Agne 10:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what I can contribute to that article (although I'm itching to pump up the Oregon section), but maybe when I have some spare time, being as how I live in the Willamette Valley, I might just be able to take some nice pictures of the wine itself and maybe of some bottles from key vineyards. EvilSuggestions 08:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Riesling to FA help

I got some feedback from Hildanknight on the Good Articles Committee for some areas to start working on. Here are his comments

• The article does not have any external links. Please add external links to websites about Riesling, which will offer further reading beyond the scope of the article.
• The article also lacks references.
• There may be slight POV issues with statements like "wine lovers of all experience can certainly enjoy the elegant complexity of this grape", "Riesling is one of the grape varieties considered to best express the terroir of the place that it is grown", "Several recent vintages of German Riesling have been regarded as exceptionally good" and "Riesling is a very versatile wine to have with food, because of its balance of sugar and notable acidity".
• As a side note, there's a picture of the grape, but what about the wine?

Agne 10:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a to do list to the Riesling talk page, and put these suggestions in there. EvilSuggestions 08:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

If any one in Sydney, Australia wants to take photos of bottles of wine for articles, let me know. I can provide the bottles but not the photography skills. Gsherry 03:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Vintage info in articles

What is everyone's thought on including vintage info in articles about particular varietals? As a newbie, when I was expanding the Riesling article, I made it a point to try and mention a good vintage (at least in my own view) for each style of Riesling. As I matured as a Wikipedian, I realized how subjective that was. In doing research for sources I found mix bag reviews among critics on different vintages which leads me to rethink the value in including vintage info in the article at all. Does the value merit the time and effort it would take to properly source the vintage info? Agne 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's really not something that should be in the article. I wouldn't look to an encyclopedia for information on what wines to choose (WP is not a wine guide ;), but on history and general information about the varietal. Then if the reader is interested they can go to other, more specific sources. If there was something historic and truely noteworth about a vintage, I can see it being worth while, but simply saying that 2004 (for example) was a good year doesn't further the artical as an encyclopedia article. The Bethling 07:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm echoing some of what The Bethling said, but I'd suggest that you rely on two of the key priciples of Wikipedia to guide you: is it verifiable and is it notable. So, for verifiable, statements like "some people say 1997 was a good year for wine X" would be bad, but statements like "Wine Growing Region X had drier than normal weather in 1997, resulting in wines with a higher sugar concentration" can be verified against climate data, etc. As for notable, I could see how vintage info could be notable for say, Château Lafite-Rothschild, but not so for say, Boone's Farm. Or from the previous analogy, if Wine Growing Region X is the dominant producer of a particular wine style, then mentioning something that had a drastic affect on the wines in that region in a given year might be notable. Also should mention the No Original Research policy, so if you can't find a reference somewhere else to back up a claim, it probably shouldn't be included. --EvilSuggestions 16:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a wine guide. I like that. It has a nice ring to it and may need to be crafted into a more stated concept. As we expand Wikipedia's assortment of wine articles, I can very easily see the slide towards trying to make it a wine guide. I think I fell down that slope in my first expansion of the Riesling article. However, taste is very subjective--even with the "experts" and we could very easily stray over the line of original research if we tried to input information about vintages, expert scores and the like. Of course, I do agree that if a particular vintage is considered "historic" then that should be included but can any vintage in the last 50 or so years say with enough hinesight that it was a "historic vintage"?Agne 06:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oregon Wineries

Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon, someone suggested the following task on their talk page. Sounds like it's right up our alley:

Perhaps we need a List of Oregon Wineries in sections by appellation? There is already a Category:Oregon wineries, but it's not very populated. Of course we will have to watch for making any of it sound like an advert... Katr67 14:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I might be able to do some work on that eventually, but if some ambitious soul wants to dive right in, be my guest. --EvilSuggestions 18:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon and not part of this WikiProject, but I've started a draft article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Oregon wine. I've added it to both WikiProjects. I encourage you folks on WP Wine to have at it, and bat me upside the head if I'm full of it. :) I know much more about Oregon than I do about wine (being a beer drinker myself), but our state is excellent at producing both, and this should be covered well in Wikipedia. --EngineerScotty 05:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do to help out. Agne 08:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• The article is no longer a draft; it now exists at Oregon wine. Lots of redlinks remain though; most of them should be turned into articles. Oh, BTW--Wikipedia could use an article on wine tourism. --EngineerScotty 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added a stub on Wine tourism, with links to some scholarly sources on the subject (most hits on google for "wine tourism" are promotional in nature, and not very useful). Someone else can expand on this topic. --EngineerScotty 00:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for a "Notable Vineyard/Winery"

I'm curious as to what others thoughts are on the criteria for a "Notable Vineyard/Winery". One of the section heading on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Oregon wine ask for a list and it's something that we are going to encounter quite a bit. Should we go by sales? Awards? (And that, what type of awards--there are so many in winemaking) Cost per bottle? Critical acclaim? (How do we define this? A Wine Spectator score, a mention by Parker, etc) Something to mull over. Agne 08:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'd separate criteria for wineries (including those with vineyards) from independent vineyards. Wineries are easier, as they are licensed and bonded in many places, at least in Oregon. At any rate, some criteria to consider, with any one criteria being sufficient for notability.
  • A certain number of cases shipped/year. 30,000? Too big? Too small?
  • Wineries who have any vintages win an award in a major wine competition.
  • A Parker score over 90 (higher? lower?) Likewise with Wine Spectator?
  • Unusual business model--i.e. the Carlton Winemakers Studio [1]
  • Official designation such as Grand cru in places where that applies?
  • Characteristic of an appellation?
  • Demonstrably unique terroir? I'm leery of this, as every vineyard thinks that their terroir's unique. :)

--EngineerScotty 05:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it, but I think it might be a little too forgiving. In my mind the biggest single criteron (other than total production) is whether the winery has any presence outside it's local market. For the most part, if a winery's wines can only be purchased from the winery and a handful of place around it, then I don't think it's notable. If someone can buy it in another state (or country), then I think it is. -- The Bethling 04:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor nitpick: A boutique winery that sells its wine in its local region for much higher prices than its local competitors, and sells out every year, might qualify as "notable" because those folks lucky enough to get a bottle recognize a good thing. Just because Parker etc. never heard of it doesn't mean it's not worthy of notice... and I can think of a few that I hope Parker or Wine Spectator never discover, because if they do it'll become unavailable to me!

I personally think that we should avoid mentioning "notable" wines because they change from year to year, and in my opinion the ratings are pretty subjective (I've tasted wines I like better than ones rated "98 points" or whatever). On the other hand, talking about "Wineries known for [insert varietal]" is another matter, and is probably best addressed by production. Sutter Home, for example, is unquestionably "known for" white zinfandel because they invented the stuff and remain the biggest source. -Amatulic 07:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

An alternative:

• The most important (big) wineries in a wine region, i.e. 5-12 per wine region. I think it is important to list some wineries in every wine region, maybe more than 12 in the biggest wine region.
• Some other notable wineries:
  1. some (more than 3-5) awards in a major wine competition
  2. historic notable wineries (with some special notability)
  3. special wines (grapes, methods, ...): max 5 per "category" (per wiki-wine article). Some special wines are not produced by bigest wineries.
  4. notable (notable links from other wiki articles)

1. Grand cru and other appellation only in a single (per wine region) list page

Cate 15:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think wine competitions have significant meaning, major or not. I say this because I know a vintner who feels his wines speak for themselves and that he doesn't need to enter competitions to "prove" anything. And he still charges a premium price (what the market will bear) compared to other wineries in his area who do enter competitions. Based on this knowledge, I suspect that competitions miss some notable wines because the vintners don't bother to enter; i.e. if you know your stuff is good, and your customers know it, and you have no problem selling it at the price you want, why bother? (Interestingly, the only time his wine ever competed was when a customer brought some Syrah to a local competition in Australia, and it beat out every other entry there.) -Amatulic 18:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that almost all wine competitions are overrated. Winery's can enter dozens of them every year and, odds are if the wine is any good, they'll take home a bunch of medals that look really nice in their tasting room. However, quality is certainly different than notability. Some competitions can establish a winery as being notable. Chateau Montelena "only" makes 32,000 cases a year, yet their 'win' in the Paris wine tasting of 1976 establish it as being notable. Otherwise they'd just be another high-quality Napa winery. -- The Bethling^(Talk) 00:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I do think you need to give some weight to how notable the particular competition is. The 1976 Paris tasting was certainly historical and by extension a favorable showing in that would give more notable creed to a wine/winery then winning the typical state fair wine competition. Agne 02:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

AVA articles

I've created the category Category:American Viticultural Areas, and populated it with several Oregon articles. (Two real articles, and several redirects from smaller AVAs into their parent AVAs). --EngineerScotty 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Varietal Grape Articles vs Varietal Wine

Currently we have a status quo where in articles about a Varietal Grape we also have information about the wine that comes from that grape. We do this oppose to having a two separate articles, one on the grape and the other on the wine. However a user on the Zinfandel page has noted (and editted to the affect) that the article is about the grape itself, not the wine. What is everyone's thoughts on this? Agne 21:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As the user being referred to here, perhaps I was being a bit unreasonable. I apologize. I will grant that the grape and the wine are inextricably linked; however, at the same time, the grape makes the wine, so when I want to know about a particular varietal, I am more curious about the grape itself, and where it came from, what it's related to, and so forth. I think it's appropriate to include words about the wine provided they're objective and avoid subjective winespeak jargon ("smooth" finish, "supple" tannins, etc.). I think we can all agree that subjectivity isn't appropriate in an encyclopedia. My comment that articles should be "about the grape itself, not the wine" was made in the context of including a picture of a bottle of a specific brand of wine; the picture didn't seem to fit. When Agne wrote that the purpose of the picture was to provide a visual break in an article full of text, I concluded that the picture should be replaced, which I did after writing about the research into Zinfandel's origins. Amatulic 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Willamette Valley

Wine region
File:Oregon wine country.jpg
Official name	Willamette Valley AVA
Type	American Viticultural Area
Year established	1984
Years of wine industry	1965–
Sub-regions	Dundee Hills AVA McMinnville AVA Ribbon Ridge AVA Yamhill-Carlton District AVA
Climate region	I
Total area	5,200 sq. miles
Varietals produced	Pinot Noir and other
No. of wineries	200
Comments	All data as of 2005

Some infoboxes to consider. Since I've been editing several articles on Pacific Northwest wine appellations, how about {{Infobox Wine Region}}? A wine region includes lots of different things, including established political regions with wine industries (such as Oregon or France), government-recognized appellations like American Viticultural Areas or Appellations d'Origine Contrôlée, and informal (but well-documented and verifiable) regions like the South Willamette Valley.

Before creating the thing and slapping it on articles, some proposed fields for such an infobox:

• The name. Possibly an official name, and other common names
• A picture and caption
• Year established, for AVAs and such
• Approximate age of a significant wine industry in the region
• The type of the region (political region, AVA, AOC, etc)
• If part of a larger region, or overlapping with another region, what it is.
• Sub-regions? This might get too big for some places.
• Location (approximate), if not evident from the name
• Climate info--when is the growing seasion, precipitation during growing season, temperature, heat units, climate region etc.
• Number of wineries, and amount of wine produced.
• Particularly notable wineries--not an exhaustive list, but the top three or so (or fewer if there aren't that many notable wineries).
• Total size of the region, size of planted vineyards, tons (metric or otherwise) of grapes produced
• Varietals commonly grown there--not every one, but those which the regions is known for.
• Soil conditions, if documented.

--EngineerScotty 05:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a fabulous idea. And welcome aboard. :) Agne 05:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A sample infobox now exists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Infobox Wine Region. Trying it out for where I live:

...gee, the code behind that template looks kinda familiar :).

I thought you might recognize it.  :)

Actually, I'm flattered and I'm glad you were able to not only make sense of, but also repurpose, the weird stuff I put into mine.

Not a problem.

As for comments, I'll mostly just offer a suggestion for that data year field. Instead of having a seperate field row for that, I'd suggest making use of the As of syntax which could appear after each changable data value in the table. That way different values could have different source years. On the page I just linked to, they mention that it also highlights the value via a category as being a data that should be checked on at some point in the future. It would look something like the following:

Total size (acres):	3,328,000 (as of 2005)
No. of wineries:	200 (as of 2006)

That might work; I'm thinking of changing the "data year" to a "comments" scheme, where other useful (but succinct) comments could be added. One other question. Currently, there are fields for "acres total/planted" and "hectares total/planted", depending on whether one is in the US or not :); I'm thinking a more general approach might be better. Two possibilities:

• Have "units" fields for quantities. That way, the "total size" can be expressed in whatever units are needed--square miles, square km, acres, hectares, square feet, etc. The units would still appear in the left columng.
• Leave units alone; users can write the units in the right column.

Thoughts?

I'm also adding a wine-ish colorscheme. In a little bit... done. Rose for the caption background, burgundy for the caption text, champagne for the body background, and vine green for the body text. Links still look reasonable. --EngineerScotty 16:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely of the opinion that units should not appear in the lefthand column, and that they should be attached to the value instead. This allows for leveraging existing Conversion templates like {{AcreAndHectare}}, (e.g. "{{AcreAndHectare|100}}" becomes "100 acres (40 ha)"). Of course, if you combine that with my last suggestion about As of, the value starts to get a little long, but maybe with some futzing there's a way to make it look pretty. One drawback to that AcreAndHectare template is that you can't comma-separate the digits. Here's 2 examples of that template and one with plain text:

Total area:	3,328,000 acres (1,347,000 ha)(as of 2005)
Total area:	3,328,000 acres (1,347,000 ha) (as of 2005)
Total area:	3,328,000 acres (1,346,794 ha) (as of 2005)

--EvilSuggestions 09:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it, except for the significant digits problem; the conversion templates provide no way of limiting the number of sigfigs displayed. I can assure you that the total area of the Willamette Valley is not exactly 1,346,794 +/- 0.5 hectares.  :) --EngineerScotty 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Having worked on this on WikProject Protected Areas, I suggest that you add both a metric and a U.S. unit to the infobox. Although I prefer hectares and believe that that unit is most common in this context; however, some user/s will try to change it to square kilometers. You need to decide if this is also acceptable or if you will insist on hectares. Rmhermen 12:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Very glad to see this project come about but—you knew the next word would be ‘but’!—it might be good if the climate zones extended beyond California. Ian Spackman 13:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• The term Climate regions of California is a proper name, for a system developed at UC-Davis and officially used in California, but applicable elsewhere. The main issue with it as originally formulated is it uses Fahrenheit, but conversion of the system to Celsius is trivial. Many prefer the term "heat summation method" as it is geographically neutral. --EngineerScotty 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! Perhaps it might be useful to create a redirect page with a suitable ‘geographically neutral’ name and have the template point at that? It might reduce confusion for the reader. —Ian Spackman 11:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes as suggested above; please check out the proposed template and comment. This is getting ready to take to proposed infoboxes; then we can get to the next info box, for wine producers.  :)

The infobox is now live at {{Infobox Wine Region}}. --EngineerScotty 04:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have added Template:Infobox_Wine_Producer, with one of my favourites as an example - will work on infoboxes for grapes and bottlings if there is an appetite for that.

{{Infobox wine producer| name=Domaine la Soumade| wine regions=AOC Rasteau
AOC Gigondas| type=Independent Vigneron| owner=André Romero| location=Rasteau, France| techniques=No fining| notable wines= AOC Rasteau Cuvée Confiance| }} Current entries are: name, image, other name, wine regions, type, year, part of, subidiaries, owner, location, total size, vineyards, wineries, wine produced, notable wines,techniques, comments. This effort is heavily based on the wine regions listbox. --The Sage of Brouhaha 17:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Created article Climate regions of California

Am rather surprised that this hasn't been previously described on Wikipedia. Please check for errors, blatant lies, and such. :) --EngineerScotty 06:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Focus Varietal Grapes

Amatulic's comment got me thinking about the overall quality of Wiki's article on the Varietal Grapes and how the topic of the grapes is really the starting point for all other wine related articles. I personally think it should be a priority to focus as a group on these articles first so that we have a solid base for extending into other articles. I see on other projects like Wiki project Baseball they have an info box rating quality scale for the articles. I think we should evaluate the quality of all our varietals and have a box listed on the Project Page with the current status of the articles so that we can mark it's progress. A worthwhile goal is to eventually get every grape variety to at least Good Article status, and maybe FA for some of the major ones. Afterall, they are the basis of everything that we know and love about wine. :) Agne 01:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

One user's assesment of the current status of Varietal Grape Articles

This is my personal opinion, I encourage everyone else in the group to take a look and chime with you views. I am starting with the Vitis Vinifera (Though I know I'm missing some that I can't remember). Eventually we can tackle the native North American grapes and hybrids. Note: What I'm listing as "Potential Good Article Candidate" is essentially anything above a stub status. As you'll tell there is different degrees of how close or far each article is to being an actual candidate. If we could codify some range, that would be helpful. Agne 03:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

White Grapes

Albariño

• Stub

Chardonnay

• Potential Good Article Candidate

1. Needs section headings seperating info on the grape's cultivation and planting, Vinification practices, history, and different regions production info
2. Needs expansion of the info in the above mention headings
3. Needs more references
4. Needs a couple more external links

Chenin Blanc

• Stub

Colombard

• Stub

Gewürztraminer

• Stub

Grüner Veltliner

• Stub

Malvasia

• Potential Good Article Candidate (Eventually a FA candidate)

1. Needs some photos
2. Needs section headings, especially detailing the differences in Malvasia & Malmsey, as well as more info about production

Marsanne

• Stub

Muscat

technically it could be a red grape as well

• Potential Good Article Candidate

1. Needs clean up to wiki-standards, especially with references
2. Needs Photos
3. Needs expansion under each countries' section heading
4. Needs expansion of the different styles of Muscat & more info about the grape

Pinot Blanc

• Stub

Pinot Grigio

• Stub

Riesling

• Passed as Good Article
• Reviewer has suggested for FA status
  

1. Expand it in general
2. move the External Links section beneath the References section

Roussane

• Stub

Sauvignon Blanc

• Stub

Sémillon

• Stub

Silvaner

• Stub

Viognier

• Stub

Red Grapes

Barbera

• Stub

Cabernet Franc

• Stub

Cabernet Sauvignon

• Potential Good Article Candidate

1. Needs picture of actual grape clusters
2. Needs expansion of each section under Around the World
3. Needs more references
4. Expand External Links section
5. Has information about the wine's characteristics but needs more info about the grape (cultivation, terrior characteristics, etc}

Carmenère

• Stub - also issue with name since above link is currently only a redirect, despite being the grape's proper name

Cinsaut

• Stub

Dolcetto

• Stub

Gamay

• Stub

Grenache

• Stub

Malbec

• Stub

Merlot

• Stub-Amazingly so, considering how popular the grape is both as a Bordeaux and a Varietal. Someone needs to opening a bottle of Château Pétrus and get writing. :p

Mourvèdre

• Stub

Muscadine

• Some Muscadines are white wine grapes.
• Potential Good Article Candidate

1. Needs correction on why it's sweet (the wineries add sugar to it!!)
2. Needs more references

Nebbiolo

• Potential Good Article Candidate

1. Needs a bit of cleanup, especially to wiki format
2. A photo of the wine would be nice
3. Needs expansion on info about the grape and wine
4. Needs references
5. Needs work to eliminate redlinks

Petite Sirah

• Stub

Petit Verdot

• Stub

Pinot Noir

• Potential Good Article Candidate (Eventually working to FA)

1. Need to expand certain articles under areas of production such as Austria, Australia, Italy etc. Even under France and certainly Oregon more could be said. To get to FA status, we may need to develop more the Burgundy Wine & Oregon Wine sections relating to Pinot Noir in those articles to function as a content fork for this one.
2. Needs more references & external links

Pinotage

• Potential Good Article Candidate

1. Needs some photos
2. Needs some NPOV work
3. Need formating and section headings
4. Needs References

Plavac Mali

• Stub

Sangiovese

• Stub

Syrah

• Potential Good Article Candidate

1. Needs Photos
2. Needs references and fact checking (i.e. Shiraz from Iran?) This would also help with NPOV
3. Needs overall expansion, especially in detailing the differences between Syrah and Shiraz-which extends beyond just the name.

Tempranillo

• Stub

Touriga Nacional

• Stub

Zinfandel

• Potential Good Article Candidate (Eventually FA}

1. Need a photo of the wine in glass
2. Need to merge the Trivia information into the main article
3. Needs a reference section
4. Needs more information on the wine itself

Regarding trivia: Does the trivia section really need merging, or is removing more appropriate? I was the one who originally pulled those sentences out of the main article and created a "trivia" subheading to put them in, because I couldn't find a way to fit them anywhere else after my rather massive edit of the rest of that page. However, I don't think the trivia section adds anything of value. Amatulic 16:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• If you go to FAC, they'll insist that trivia be integrated or removed. --EngineerScotty 16:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the bit about the California Senate should be removed, but the bit about how Zinfandel cannot be called Primitivo in Italy should be expanded into a section about differences of opinion — I know several wineries have testified that the two grapes are divergent species even though they share the same DNA, evidenced by the fact that Zinfandel and Primitivo grow right next to each other yield wines of different flavors. Amatulic 17:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Be careful of terminology. Virtually all grapes used to make European-style table wine, white or red, are from the same biological species, Vitis vinifera (with many vines attached to rootstock from American grape species, so the roots won't get eaten by root lice). Just like whites, blacks, and Asians are all Homo sapiens, and wolves and chihuahuas are both Canis lupus; in plants and animals alike, there is considerable intra-species variation. As for "sharing the same DNA", what precisely is meant by that? --EngineerScotty 17:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • In this discussion page, I hope that sloppy/casual use of language is given more slack. "Sharing the same DNA" means, of course, that Primitivo and Zinfandel have genetic markers that identify them as the same varietal. My point was that several vintners I know insist that there is more difference between Primitivo and Zinfandel than there is between different Zinfandels. I think it's worth mentioning in the article, perhaps by way of expanding on that trivia comment about how Zinfandel can't be sold as Primitivo in Italy... whether through nationalist pride or because Italians recognize the difference, I cannot say. -Amatulic 07:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reference section: Isn't that already there at the bottom, the external links? Amatulic 16:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• "References" and "External links" are not the same. "References" is for sources which support the claims made in the article. In line sources, with <ref></ref> tags, are these days mandatory for FA status. "External links" is for sources outside Wikipedia which might provide more illimunation on the topic, but are not used to support the article. --EngineerScotty 16:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I see it both ways on various articles. References and external links in the same section (sometimes called "References and External Links"). I just changed that section in Zinfandel accordingly. Amatulic 17:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Grape variety naming

I would suggest that this Wikiproject could set a standard for the naming of grape varieties. Currently the List of grape varieties shows several forms used to disambiguate grapes:

1. X (grape)
2. X grape
3. X Grape
4. X (wine) (used once on the list but it is a redirect to an X (grape))

I would prefer the first format as most in line with Wikipedia's general naming conventions. If one standard is decided on, I could help with moving current articles to the standard. Rmhermen 19:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also favor the first format for the same reason, with the applicable redirects set up in the other formats. Agne 11:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for the first format: X (grape). AJD 13:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

1, with 4 for things like White Zinfandel which are neither the name of a grape varietal nor a wine appellation. Of course, if the term is not used in any other context other than a grape varietal, then simply X will suffice. --EngineerScotty 17:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Rmhermen 06:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

1 sounds best to me.

Another question. If a variety is grown in many countries under different local names (this is the case with Welschriesling), it would be nice to have a guideline about which languages to include in the English article. Like: if >n% of the grapes grown in the country is of variety X, or if >n% of the worldwide yield of the variety X is grown in the country, its language should be listed. This might end up a sensitive issue for neighboring Serb/Hungarian/Roumanian/Slovak/Austrian nationalists otherwise. varbal 19:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer 1. As for your second point, I think this can best be solved as follows: firstly, we need a wine grape info box which contains a 'synonyms' row. The 'most popular' name for the grape can be the master article and all synonyms can be redirected to it. The 'master' article name can, I'm sure, be determined by discussion when it is not clear. For example, if the choice was to be made between Cabernet Franc and Bouchet, the prior is clearly the most popular name even though the latter is used much more extensively in France than most would think (in fact, Bordeaux is the only region, to my knowledge, that calls it Cabernet Franc). However, internationally it is almost universally known as Cabernet Franc. A grape which would require discussion would be Durif/Petite Sirah. The name Durif is used mostly in Australia but it is known only in the USA as Petite Sirah (to my knowledge). However, it was originally propagated by Dr. Durif (for which it was named) and is generated discussed in wine making texts by the name Durif. So, it is not clear cut.Gsherry 01:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As to which language names should be listed, I'd say, it's part of the job of an encyclopedic article in this field to list them all.

As to which language name should be chosen for the article heading, I agree that this could potentially be a sensitive issue, but Wikipedia gives us a convention to follow: we must choose the name most commonly used in English, and give redirects from others. Andrew Dalby 13:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

AOC pages

I notice on the Chablis wine page someone has suggested we merge the Chablis AOC page. I think this is a good idea and we should also merge other pages called AOC into the corresponding main article about the wine. The fact that a wine has AOC status (or the equivalent in countries other than France) should be mentioned in the main article about the wine, and it seems superfluous and confusing to me to have a separate page for the AOC. --Portnadler 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However there should be consensus in what the resulting page name would be. I saw one user suggest the end article name to be Chablis AOC. I would disagree because I think that more of the article will be spent discussing the wine versus the AOC. A better name would be Chablis (wine) or at the very least Chablis (AOC) with Chablis being a natural redirect. Agne 16:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My preference is that we use the style Chablis (wine) for all pages that describe a wine that bears the name of the place that produces it. The Chablis article would be about the town in France, but with a disambiguation paragraph to the wine. The Chablis AOC article should be merged into Chablis (wine). --Portnadler 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually wonder, for a place like Chablis, if the disambiguation should be the other way around. Chablis would redirect to Chablis (wine) and have a note there that points to, say, Chablis (commune). Places like Chablis, Sauternes, and Vouvray are all much better known "as" wines, and a user doing a search would be much more likely to be looking for infomation about the wine that's made there. - The Bethling 20:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether the town or the wine is more familiar depends upon your perspective. To someone in the USA, it might be the wine. To someone in Paris, it would probably be the town. I think the the usual principle to apply to disambiguation is to give the main entry to whichever came first. In the case of Chablis, the town came before the wine. I would apply a similar argument to Bordeaux and Bordeaux wine, because it would clearly be silly to relegate one of the largest cities in France to a subordinate entry. Another example would be Madeira, Madeira wine and Madeira cake. Similar judgements based on precedence are applied to placenames in the USA and elsewhere that derive their name from an original settlement in Europe (e.g. Birmingham). --Portnadler 07:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggested the AOC/Wines that I did for the very reason that they're named after smaller communes, that probably wouldn't be very notable outside of the wines produced there. I almost used the example of Bordeaux as a case that wouldn't make sense :) The guideline for disambiguation is to use a disambiguation page unless there's a "well known primary meaning." In the case of place names in the USA, for example Boston points to my hometown in Massachusetts rather than the city that it got its name from.

The question kind of comes down to whether the commune is better known than the wine. I'd say yes, but that's just my opinion. :) Though there's no harm in leaving it the way it is, either. - The Bethling 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll withdraw my comment on the Birmingham/Boston issue. It's not relevant to this discussion and perhaps I shouldn't have introduced it. In general, I still think that where you have a product or products made in a specific city/town/region, the product(s) should be subordinate to the place where it/they come from. I agree it is a matter of perspective and judgement, but it would be nice to have a consistent naming scheme as far as possible. --Portnadler 11:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine :) I've just been doing a lot of disambiguation cleanup recently, and hoped to keep a problem from happening here. However, looking at the links to the pages, there really aren't enough links that maintenance will be a problem. Going to go though and fix the ones that really should be to the wine page. - The Bethling 02:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with merging. Each should have its own article. In this case it is complicated by the fact that "chablis" is used as a Semi-generic name for some American wines which have no connection to Chablis the place. Rmhermen 16:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep the articles separate; there are many interesting things about the place besides the wine; and a detailed treatment of the wine doesn't belong in a geographical article. Regarding the name, if either is the primary it should IMHO be the town and not the wine/AOC. But that's just my two bucks of Chuck. --EngineerScotty 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wine Templates

If, the Major Wine Style template is deleted, per Portnadler's nom, I do think it's important to have something similar to replace it. I really like his suggestion of one template for Varietal's and one for Regions.

My question is, is there a good, objective measure of what can designate a grape or a region as being significant? The list of varietals above seems a little too broad to be really useful, and although I know how to find some sales figures for many types in the US, just because American's don't drink much of it, it doesn't mean it's not important. I'm going to see if I can find better, world wide numbers somewhere.

Similarly with regions, how far do break them down and decide which ones should be included? Do we limit it to the "old world", or do places like Napa get included? Obviously telling someone that a bottle of wine is from Burgundy is much more informative than saying it's from Napa.

I'm just thinking that having something of a reasonably objective standard would be nice to avoid having it expand to the point where it stops being useful. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, for grapes, I think a template similar to the cells in the De Long varietal table might be useful. That table is an excellent reference, by the way, worth the purchase price.

As to regions, I'm not sure how useful such a template might be, particularly in California, where wineries from one region buy grapes from other regions. For example, if you find a Napa Zinfandel that's any good, then it's likely the grapes came from Amador county, which is in the Shenandoah Valley region. Similarly I see Paso Robles wineries using grapes from Monterey — I'm not sure if those two areas lie in the same viticultural region, but they certainly don't share the same climates. I wonder if European regions trade their grapes around in a similar fashion. -Amatulic 23:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

WRT to grapes. The law actually says that the region listed on the bottle is where the grapes are grown, though there are some restrictions (I'm a wine maker, not a lawyer :). Washington is a good example of that. Many of the large wineries are physically located in the Puget Sound Appelation, but the wines they produce are labeled as Columbia Valley, Yakama Valley, etc. Personally, to me Napa has to do with the wines made from grapes grown in Napa.

For the templates I'm not really talking about information about the grape/region itself. The template that goes at the bottom of the pages that links together the various pages to make exploring the subject easy. Currently there's the Template:Major Wine Styles template. It's been nominated for deletion, with the suggestion to separate out regions and varietials (having Chablis and Chardonnay on the same grouping feels wrong). I'm seeing if there's any sort of nice and objective way limiting the number of varietals that appear on it. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 03:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Major Grape Varieties template

Here is a first draft of a Major Grape Varieties template. I'm sure I've forgotten some, but please see my comments on its talk page. Portnadler 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"I'm sure I've forgotten some" — That's quite an understatement! :) De Long's varietal table lists 91 red and 93 white varietals - most of which are listed above on this page. A template like this invites argument regarding what's "major" (subjective judgment depending on where you're from, for example some might argue that the Noble grapes are "major" above all others) and also invites endless expansion. It also isn't really informative to someone curious about varieties in general; knowing just the "major" ones doesn't really help. I think it's more useful to link to the List of grape varieties or a complete list ranked by production, and be done with it.

To me, a more useful template would be a varietal template to be used on each varietal page, similar to the cells in the De Long varietal table. I'm not particularly thrilled with the botanical template that appears on some pages (e.g. muscadine); I think that template could be expanded to be more wine-related. -Amatulic 17:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't have an exhaustive list in a template! Either we obtain some kind of consenus on what is a major grape variety or we forget the whole thing.

I've also been doing some reorganisation of the categories for wine. There are two main starting points from which we can drill down: Category:Wines by country and Category:Grape varieties. I plan to add sub-categories for the major wine-producing countries, so for France we would have Bordeaux, Burgundy, etc. Other people with better knowledge could add those for other countries.

Portnadler 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the "Black Grapes" and "Green Grapes", because it's not really accurate. Gewurtztraminer is pink, Pinot Gris is gray. I'd prefer "Red Wine Grapes" and "White Wine Grapes", assuming that's not too wine centric.

As to the usefulness of this template, I think it is. When I first started looking at Wikipedia's wine stuff, I picked a varietal to read and then used the "major wine styles" template at the bottom to visit the other ones. I think having something to link the major grape types can be very helpful to new users and/or people who don't know as much about wine. We also have a need for a infobox style template specific for wine varietals. That's something that been discussed before. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 19:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I posted a comment here to notify everyone that I had created the new template, but perhaps it would be a good idea to conduct further discussion on its talk page. --Portnadler 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that this template is removed, now that the template {{Wines}} has been developed. I have therefore removed the transclusion from the discussion above, and perhaps we should nominate it for deletion. --Portnadler 11:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wines Template

There is now a proposal to create a Wines template, to supersede both the Major Styles and Grape Varieties templates. Please see the discussion on its talk page. --Portnadler 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The new template {{Wines}} has now been created, and the discussion copied to the new talk page. --Portnadler 10:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)