Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Wines task force/Archive 13

Valhalla Vineyards' location and AVA

I have a question about Valhalla Vineyards' location and whether it is within an AVA. User:Colonel Warden recently added a source that says that it is in the North Fork of Roanoke AVA.

Google Books search for Valhalla Vineyards North Fork of Roanoke returns these results, and the new source appears to be (1):

1. Vineyard & winery management: Volume 32 (2006): "Valhalla Vineyards in the North Fork of Roanoke River AVA near Roanoke, VA"
2. Directory and products guide (2004): "Valhalla Vineyards Established in 1998. Appellation in North Fork of Roanoke."

At WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 6, it was pointed out that Virginia Wine showed Valhalla Vineyards near, but outside, North Fork of Roanoke AVA (Shenandoah Valley, Blue Ridge). Which source is correct? Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible for the actual winery (building) to be just outside the AVA border, although they make wines from vineyards inside the AVA? Tomas e (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds plausible. I assumed that there was a contradiction here. A Google web search returns lists of their wines tagged as "North Fork of Roanoke", but I can't tell if that's a grandfathered appellation or the actual American Viticultural Area. I apologize for my lack of knowledge – I'm not sure what's relevant. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

About Alsacian wines

Hi!

I made some changes in the following articles :

• Alsace wine regions is now called Alsace wine region and supposed to speak about the wine region (pending to fr:Vignoble d'Alsace);
• Alsace wine (mostly unchanged), supposed to speak about the wines covered by the designation AOC Alsace (pending to fr:Alsace (AOC));
  • the articles about each varietal Alsacian wine are available in the French Wikipedia (e.g. fr:Riesling d'Alsace) and should be transferred/translated into the present one;
• Crémant d'Alsace (new), supposed to speak about the sparkling wines covered by the designation AOC Crémant d'Alsace (pending to fr:Crémant d'Alsace) and certainly needing more or less copyedit;
• Alsace Grand Cru (improved), supposed to speak about the 51 wines covered by the designation AOC Alsace Grand Cru (pending to fr:Alsace Grand Cru);
  • soon will come in the French Wikipedia the 51 articles about each of these Grands Crus. Some are already available, some others in the German Wikipedia.

Some infos should be moved between "Alsace wine regions" and "Alsace wine" to make the different purposes clearer.

Hope this helps. Papatt (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I absolutely disagree. It should be completely obvious from the article's content that Alsace wine is the main article on the region. It also follows from standard naming practice in this project that we do not write out "region" in the name of all wine articles, see for example Bordeaux wine. I strongly advice against trying to change the naming practice of this project. I can understand that it was easy to misunderstand, because Alsace wine regions was created by a fusion of the two AOC articles Crémant d'Alsace and Alsace AOC in July 2009, as can be seen from the article history. This fusion was unnecessary in my mind, and the name of the article misleading, since the three Alsace AOCs do not cover geographically different regions. (It was supposed to be an article/list on "Alsace wine appellations".) My proposal:

• Since you have created Crémant d'Alsace, my proposal is to recreate Alsace AOC. After that Alsace wine regions can be redirected to the Alsace wine article (possibly after moving some material); it will no longer be necessary to have a separate article intending to list the AOCs.
• I see absolutely no point in having separate articles for each of the varietal designations within Alsace, since they are not separate AOCs. Expand the main Alsace wine article instead, and add to the article on each grape variety.
• Expanding the Grand Cru article is surely a good idea.
• I'll have to have a look at your changes, I hope to have time in the next couple of days, but probably not today. It gets me quite worried when I notice that you have deleted the section on the well-known criticism of the Grand Cru system, but instead inserted a history of events predating the Grand Cru appellation by more than 1300 years. To be frank, articles on French wine in French Wikipedia tend sometimes to be written in a way that is not quite up to English Wikipedia's standard. There is more acceptance of positively biased POV, judgmental statements without references, and wine guide-style material in French than in English. However, there tends to be a lot more content on French wine in French, so there is indeed a lot to expand from. But don't make the assumption that translating the French material and writing over the existing one will make a better article... Tomas e (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for my clumsiness, I now better understand the difference between the respective structures and particularities of the French wine project and the English one. Please believe I do not want to be the elephant in the porcelain shop.
About your proposal:

• I agree with the idea to merge Alsace wine region into Alsace wine for the same reason;
• I insist that having a page about the genuine AOC Alsace (the basic and earliest one) is important;
• I don't agree with your point of view about Alsacian varietal wines since these wines made the reputation of this vineyard (but this point is not on the critical way, don't bother for now);
• no further comment about Alsace Grands Crus for now, please let's continue in the right talk page: either yours or mine or even in the article's talk page (by the way, I'd prefer this more open and pertinent option);
• I think that mixing our both styles (or at least trying to) could lead to improve both of them. I never said (or even thought) than one in better or worse than the other. Did I?

Best, Papatt (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Vega Sicilia

Hi All,

I have unfortunately found the majority of Vega Sicilia was a copyvio that was added to the article in 2008! I have reverted to a prior version but it is not in a good state. Is there any interest in helping me bring this up to a decent standard please? Camw (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I also think part of the German article is a translation of our copyvio - I'm not sure what to do there but will look into it. Camw (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I did some work on it to get it up to at least a C level. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I did mean to get back to it but haven't been spending much time here lately. Camw (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wine Project DYKs-Still worth doing?

I don't know how many people follow the politics of DYK but for the last few months there has been quite a battle going with an ever increasing bureaucracy of rules, checklists and headaches. What use to be a fairly simple process is now knee-deep in paperwork and complexity. Despite being involved with the DYK project for more than 5 years, I hardly recognize the Template talk:Did you know nominating page anymore. The bulk of the issue seems to be the new, extensive reviewing procedures which are required if you self-nominate an article. Personally, after looking through all of it, I don't really know if it is worth the effort.
Non-self nominations are still fairly simple and don't carry with them the quid pro quo review requirement. So, that said, if any wine project editor creates a new article or expand an existing one, I will gladly nominate it for them so that we can still can get some wine-related articles on the front page. But I doubt I will bother with nominating my own. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely think it's worth doint. I confess I have been inactive (even if I was a big supporter some time ago) but I've had a lull in my WP-Wine interest, having acquired no new litterature etc. But I think the idea it terrific! Keep it up, I'll soon join I'm sure.--Nwinther (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've also dropped out of the DYK sphere after a few months of reduced activity, but I'm also happy to nominate others efforts where appropriate. Camw (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well if there is still interest, maybe we'll develop a system of nominating each others articles. One obvious benefit is that a second set of eyes from the nominator will keep with the spirit of the DYK reforms of more scrutiny on the articles. Also, if there is an issue brought up on the DYK page, we can post an FYI here for other wine project members to see and maybe help to solve.
  

As I said, I'll be willing to nominate someone's article so if you have anything, feel free to post it here. Also, feel free to take a look at Vega Sicilia and Soave to see if there is anything "hooky" that is worth a DYK for. Both would qualify as a 5x expansion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If you Winos need any help with adding and reformatting citations, point me in the right direction as I am pretty good with that. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Major confusion/contradiction regarding Central-European wines

I've been checking out the articles in Category:Hungarian wine, and found the following:

• Kövérszőlő states that Fetească Regală is a cross between Fetească Albă and Kövérszőlő. Fetească Regală OTOH states "It is a crossing of Grasă and Fetească albă." The phrase Grasă links to Grasă de Cotnari.
• A quick Google suggests that Grasă and Kövérszőlő are synonymous! Yet, Grasă de Cotnari states "The grape variety Grasa is similar to Kövérszőlő, a grape cultivar grown in Tokaj, Hungary and both of them can be found in some areas in Alba county, supporting the thesis that they share common roots."
• Kövérszőlő lists the origin of the cultivar as "a crossing of Kadarka with Munkatsy Jozsef (which in turn is Diamanttraube × Muscat of Alexandria)". However, all Internet sources except VIVC claim otherwise. hu:Kövérszőlő also disagrees with VIVC, and equates Kövérszőlő with Grasă.

It appears that these articles were almost entirely based on VIVC's data, which is probably inaccurate in this case. The "Kadarka" variety linked from Kövérszőlő's VIVC passport (misspelled there as "Koeverszoeloe") is an essentially empty page (see [1]); the real Kadarka is listed as "Kadarka Kek" (suffix is a corruption of Hungarian "kék" for "blue"). VIVC's "Grasa de Cotnari" page ([2]) lists no original pedigree, but the Synonyms list contains "Koeverszoeloe" and "Kover Szolo", both accent-damaged versions of Kövérszőlő.

Someone with more expertise than myself should review these articles (and some others in Category:Hungarian wine, Category:Romanian wine and Category:Moldovan wine) and check facts independently from VIVC. --NetRolller 3D 22:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Blog link in Solera

I have thrice removed the blog link http://wineforspicewarrenedwardes.blogspot.com/2011/09/demystifying-solera-system.html from the Solera article, on the grounds that I can't determine that the author of this blog, Warren Edwardes, can be regarded as an authority on the subject as required by WP:ELNO #11. He's published an article in a free online wine publication. Anything else? Any comments? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Response by HenryWilliams 58

Check out Warren Edwardes at #10 in the list of wine people in Google Plus http://gpc.fm/l/winepeople

Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/wedwardes (maxed at 5000)

On the free online wine magazine, GrapesTALK, Warren Edwardes is the Publisher and Editor of GrapesTALK. Check out :Issue 10 featuring Robert Parker http://www.asdw.co.uk/Grapestalk.10%20%202009.pdf and issue 9 featuring Hugh :Johnson http://www.asdw.co.uk/Grapestalk.9%20%202009.pdf

Both Robert Parker and Hugh Johnson are known to people with some knowledge of wine. Also check out the other writers :many of them British but Wikipidea is not a domestic US encyclopaedia. http://grapestalk.co.uk/

You will see that there is a declaration that no contributor to GrapesTALK is paid and as there is no cover charge :these authors must know Warren Edwardes and respect him

Check out GrapesTALK on Facebook which has 3482 "likes" https://www.facebook.com/pages/GrapesTALK/192122243009

Checking out http://wineforspicewarrenedwardes.blogspot.com/ I see that there have been 27,127 visitors in the past year.

For transparency I met Warren Edwardes through an online wine forum and then at a wine tasting and he is now a friend but I have no commercial interest in any wine business or project.

Amatulic, please identify yourself. I note your use of a pseudonym which may hide a conflict of interest.

I suggest reinstalling the link to Warren Edwardes' blogpost or the link to the identical article in GrapesTALK 7 explaining Solera.

~Henrywilliams58 (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Amatulic that this should not be included in the external link section. Even if #11 could be satisfied (and the points above don't convince me), the very first WP:ELNO point is "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" and this site doesn't have any information that fits that criteria. Camw (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Camw. While the author maybe semi-notable in the wine world. This link doesn't add any value to the article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My username isn't a pseudonym, either, as anyone would know who bothers to look at my userpage. Perhaps the COI insinuation should be directed instead toward those intent on adding blog links to articles in spite of our guidelines that say otherwise.

Furthermore, I note that the link Henrywilliams58 wants to add is unduly self-serving, because Warren Edwardes is the editor of GrapesTALK and author of the article referenced in his own blog. That's about as much of a self-published source as one can get. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I further the opinions already posted here. The link is not useful and borderline spam. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

James Suckling

Hello all! I am doing GA review on James suckling, a noted wine and cigar critic. Would anyone like to take a look and see if there is any points they would like to make about the article on the review page? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

References to single wineries in a grape article

What thoughts does anybody have on listing single wineries in a grape article? For example, Tempranillo has several references to particular wineries that produce a certain style, though the only references would be the websites of the winery and retailers. Unless a particular winery is doing something innovative and attracting a lot of attention, is it worth adding to an encyclopedic article the name of one small winery that is offering a certain style? The thing to consider is the longevity of the information: the company may offer the style from year to year, though a particular grape may not make into the blend each year. Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

In general, I would avoid mentioning individual producers in grape variety articles; in most cases it should be sufficient to list major production regions, and discuss style in that context. There can of course be exceptions to the rule, if a producer filled a pioneering role or produces a widely recognized "benchmark wine". For example, it seems all right to me to mention Penfolds Grange in connection with Syrah, Vega Sicilia in connection with Tempranillo and Château d'Yquem in connection with Sémillon. However, listing each and every classified Bordeaux reds in the Cabernet Sauvignon article would be "out of order" in my opinion. Tomas e (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Minor COI note

Hey guys, I recently wrote the Bethel Heights Vineyard article about a notable winery in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. Since I have a reputation for being a bit of a hard ass about winery articles, I feel compelled to disclose a minor COI I have with this winery as a wine club member. I consider it minor since I obviously don't work for the winery, they didn't ask me to write this article and I will receive no compensation or perks from writing this article outside of maybe a thank you. Still I want to be transparent since I've met the owners and will be emailing them to let them know that I've written this article and I also wanted a curb to check against any hidden bias I might have. I endeavored to treat this article the same way that I've treated every wine article, writing in an WP:NPOV fashion, avoiding WP:WINEGUIDE language and using reliable sources that independently establish the winery's notability. But since I've never actually written about a winery that I've been a wine club member of or knew anyone affiliated with, I thought it was best to drop a note and invite anyone interested to double check my efforts. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Bum wine???

It looks like in Feb, the Low-end fortified wine article was moved to the title Bum wine by a user. Now I have to admit that the old title wasn't that great but are there ANY reliable sources to support the very slang-y use of "Bum wine" for this article? Does anyone have any ideas for a better title? Are there any merge possibilities? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A major problem is that the article is very US-centric. These wines may be called bum wines in the US, but I have never heard the expression in Australia or the UK. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right. What do they call these wines elsewhere? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I usually call them "paint stripper", but we can hardly use that for the name of an article. They are often called "rotgut" or "gutrot". I do not come across them, as the very thought of actually drinking them makes me shudder! There is plenty of cheap wine about, so not need to drink these. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In the deletion discussion from 2007 that originally cleaned up the article and changed its name to Low-end fortified wine, Rotgut wine was one of the names suggestion since many news articles that focus on government concerns about the wines categorizing them as such. But we went against it since "rotgut" does seem a bit of a POV note but then I guess "low-end" and "bum" does too. Do you think we should give "rotgut" a go again? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Rotgut refers to cheap alcohol in general, and even then it's subjective. I've accidentally offended friends by using the word, assuming they felt the same way about a cheap wine that had clearly gone bad—they thought it was fine. Low-end fortified wine is probably the most neutral title.Encycloshave (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the current title is hardly comprehensive even for the US, since "bum" is part of the picture. These are staples for poor college students and minors, which may even be worth adding to "Concerns and media attention." That section might even be better as "Social impact" or "Social concerns." Encycloshave (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Tempranillo GA renomination

FYI, I have just submitted Tempranillo to GA. The article was listed as a GA in 2007, then failed reassessment a year later, mainly for unsourced information. The summary and citation inconsistencies were also cited as reasons. I've fixed those citations that I could, and I have added others. Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Some unilateral editing over at Champagne

An editor, with the only "consensus" of one other editor, has taken it upon himself to change the capitalization of the entire Champagne article to refer to the semi-generic sparklers called "champagne" instead of the protected and registered EU name. I've been engaging him in discussion on the article's talk page but he seems to ignore the fact on the basis that generic dictionaries like Merrim-Webster should trump all wine sources, EU laws and standard convention. Any other opinions on this matter to help get a real consensus on the talk page (whatever that consensus maybe) would be appreciated. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I get time. The Bethling^(Talk) 16:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh please do! It is essentially boiling down to comments like this where they're saying we should ignore what reliable wine sources use and go with generic dictionaries like Miriam-Webster because "we're not a specialized wine encyclopedia". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, please keep in mind that the unilateral claim isn't true, only Agne27 wants to ignore any particular set of sources, and Agne27 seems to be ignoring the responses, making the engagement rather one-sided. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Note, the edit was unilateral at the time I first posted since it was just Kauffer. Then you joined in, trying to force a consensus for a conversation that has only been open for a few days and involved only 3 people. No longer unilateral but definitely heavy handed. Also, I've responded to everything you've said so it is hard to be "ignoring" something that you are responding too. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Your responses keep focusing on ignoring of texts, which my responses keep pointing out is incorrect -- the specialists texts are included in the body of all English texts, not ignored. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:History of Champagne

As if the above brewha wasn't ridiculous enough, now an editor wants to take an article that is about the REGION and its winemaking history and lower case everything. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. For someone who has been outside for a while it is too much to absorb in a sitting, but it appears through squinting eyes like your mammoth effort of reasoning is working. Has someone in all of that discussion mentioned that Wikipedia ought never to even use the word "champagne" about sparkling wine outside the Champagne zone rendering one of the main arguments for small case moot, no? I'm sure it's in there. At any rate, if more bodies are needed I'll try to read up but my untrained and conflict-shy psyche would rather not. Cheers, deMURGH ^talk 20:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Murgh, your thoughts are always terrific contributions with any article (whether there is controversy or not) so feel free to add your input if you'd like. While I'm trying my best (and other users like User:Encycloshave have brought a lot of great insight that explored this issue from different angles), I don't know if we're really making progress towards consensus in either direction. The page move request at Talk:History of Champagne to circumvent the lack of consensus at Champagne was distressing and I hope this editor doesn't try to do more back door moves or unilateral edits at articles like Champagne in popular culture, List of Champagne houses, Classification of Champagne vineyards, Grower Champagne etc. I'm also a tad concern about comments like this wanting to fix "other broken" stuff. While it seems like the grape varieties (Cabernet Sauvignon, Pinot noir, etc) are safe, who knows what other wines named after wine regions could be on the firing line. (Are we going to be forced to lower case any reference to barolo, bordeaux or rioja wines?) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

While I believe it is an oversimplification to take a dictionary as the final word on capitalization, I think we can all sleep safely without fear of Kauffner de-capitating all the wines of the world. The OED and other dictionaries capitalize many of those wines. Even Bordeaux mixture, the copper sulfate-calcium oxide mix used as a fungicide, is capitalized. Still, strangely, Champagne is not capitalized, while Chablis is. It might be worth contacting the editors (not kidding) and inquiring whether there was a typo made somewhere between the definition's writer and the database. Remember, the writer is not the last person to have their hands on the copy. I remember a writer talking about how a newspaper editor haphazardly inserting line breaks in the middle of all his paragraphs. The reason was that it was supposed to make the online version more reader-friendly. As a tech writer, I can say most editors are pretty conscientious, but mistakes and good intentions do enter into the mix. This may have even been the case with Pfanner's article. A seasoned writer types pretty fast, but maybe he copy-pasted the word Champagne when he wrote so-called Champagne. Or perhaps he was sticking to the custom of not calling non-Champagne produced sparkling wine Champagne at all. Encycloshave (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh Lordy, now Kauffner is going after Amatulic on ANI for closing his premature RM on History of Champagne instead of trying to work towards consensus and continue the discussion for his desired change in the Champagne article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep calm! He isn't "going after" me. ANI is the proper venue to get a second opinion about an admin decision. He happened to open the ANI case at the same time I was recommending he do so. He rightfully found it irregular for me to close the RM early, that's all. I don't consider it bad faith for him to post a note about it on ANI. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Amatulic. I've just been discourage by Kauffner disengaging from trying to build consensus at Talk:Champagne and going these back door routes. Yes, consensus building is difficult, but it is so vital to what makes Wikipedia work and it is frustrating watching a song and dance routine instead of meaningful discussion and reasoning. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed — that's why I made the decision to close his RM proposal early. An advantage of the ANI post is that it increases visibility of the debate, hopefully bringing in more people so that a consensus may be reached. And that's a good thing. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: a new move request is underway at Talk:History of Champagne#Requested move: Try again for those who are interested. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wine country casual

Any thoughts on this article? Does it fall under our scope and is salvageable? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not salvageable. The cited source consists of my local newspaper, a user forum on Chowhound, and a dead link. The external links don't contain anything useful, just editorial fluff. That's hardly the WP:SIGCOV that an article topic should have. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Another attempt to change the History of Champagne article

See Talk:History_of_Champagne#Survey. Also note that because of this move request another editors wants to also move the History of Bordeaux wine article to a lowercase "bordeaux" title. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone hasn't chim in with their thoughts, this RM is nearly completion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat related to the whole Champagne name change mess is a new editor with an acknowledge WP:COI, User talk:Champagne is from Champagne. From what I can gather he appears to work for perhaps the Champagne Bureau or maybe even the Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne that apparently monitors our Champagne-related article for PR purposes. While so far his contributions has been fairly innocuous and I've tried to gently engage him with tips on how to productively contribute (would be awesome to get some quality free-use Champagne-related photos), I have to admit that I'm nervous that comments like this may foretell future "agenda-driven" editing to unduly bias our Champagne articles. I also kinda get the feeling that more than one user is behind the account which has its own issues. But again, nothing has happened yet and I want to be optimistic and have good faith that this user will become comfortable with our policies and seek to productively contribute. I just wanted to give other Wine Project members a heads up because, especially with the "dictionary-agenda" editors working to change the capitalization of Champagne, the last thing we need is someone turning our Champagne articles into a bias marketing vehicle for the Champagne wine industry. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Domaine de Baron'arques

Those who have better knowledge of French wine may want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domaine de Baron'arques. I'm on the fence on this one, but would like to see some more discussion on the sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Chimed in. Looking at the coverage I really don't think the estate would have gotten a whiff of attention, even in the French press, if not for the Château Mouton-Rothschild connection and as far as I can tell it seems to be operated as a sister estate not too dissimilar to Domaine Drouhin in Oregon with its parent Maison Joseph Drouhin in Burgundy. Personally I think that after the AfD, we should just merge the encyclopedic and sourced content into a sub-section in the Mouton article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I initiated a merge discussion at Talk:Château Mouton Rothschild, and it has already garnered a "strong oppose" to the merge. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What the heck is going on with New Jersey wine?

Looks like someone merged the New Jersey wine stub into a mega-list article Wineries, breweries and distilleries of New Jersey. I'm going to revert the merge but I'm wondering if the mega list list is even appropriate on its own. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It meets the WP:LIST criteria in that it's a list of places that presents more useful information than a mere category of alcoholic beverage producers in New Jersey. However, right now it's a linkfarm of inappropriate external links. There is no need to link to each website of each place. They should be converted all to Wikilinks, and if they turn into redlinks, that's OK. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have started a revision of the article New Jersey wine. Considering the Wineries, Breweries, Distilleries, megalist: Should I convert that list in a wikilinked list for inclusion into the article? Also, why are the article titles "California wine", "New Jersey wine", and not "Wine Industry in New Jersey" or "Wine Production in New Jersey"? Is there a WikiProject policy governing this naming convention? What other sections or information would you like to see included for the article? Please advise. ColonelHenry (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That "megalist" isn't really overly long, as lists go. I think it can stay as it is, just without all the external links. They should all be converted to Wikilinks, and if most of them come out as redlinks, that's OK too. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(Q1) Should the list be included in the New Jersey wine article or kept as a separate list?ColonelHenry (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(Q2/Q3/Q4) What about the title? "New Jersey wine" seems to be a little banal IMHO. Why is the standard "(State Name) wine" instead of the alternatives I mentioned above? I don't see a policy statement or guideline on the wikiproject page on article naming. I'm thinking about adding an article about terroir and geological stuff, AVA characteristics, production conditions, and varieties. Anything else in mind? ColonelHenry (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Answers:

1. My feeling is that a list should be kept as a separate list if the list is too long. An article on New Jersey Wine could include a link to the list in the "See also" section, and also maybe have a short description of the notable wineries that merit their own articles on Wikipedia. Not all of those in that list are notable.
2. You can name an article anything you want, but eventually someone will come along and rename it for consistency with everything else. "New Jersey Wine" is probably best because it's a broad title that covers information about both the industry and any production processes unique to New Jersey, not to mention the grapes commonly grown for wine, history, terroir, interstate transport regulations, etc. If any of those subjects warrants a separate article, the article on New Jersey Wine would provide a brief summary with a link to the main article on that subtopic.

By the way, I cleaned up the linkfarm in Wineries, breweries and distilleries of New Jersey. You'll see there are only a handful of establishments that actually have Wikipedia articles. Many of the rest are likely not notable and likely will never be so. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Excellent Work on the Wineries/Breweries/Distilleries list. Thanks for doing that. Unfortunately, you are correct that most will never be notable. NJ Plenary Winery license requires minimum of 3 acres of grapes on site--most winery owners do the bare minimum. NJ agriculture stats say the state produced 1.72 million gallons of wine (in 2010 or 2011), yet only had production yield in the state's vineyards to create 1/3rd of that total. It means they had to buy grapes or grape juice from elsewhere. Most buy from California and Chile. While there are some quality wines made in NJ with NJ-grown grapes (see the recent "Judgment of Princeton"), most wineries are selling ersatz wines with out-of-state grapes and shouldn't be considered an NJ wine. It is imperative to point this out in the article (but not harshly). I'll put a link for the list on NJ Wine next time I edit it (few minutes maybe). I see your points regarding the name, and know that seeking consistency in naming will likely cause a reversion, so I'll defer to conventional wisdom. But I do lodge my complaint.ColonelHenry (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  Further discussion should take place on Talk:Wineries, breweries and distilleries of New Jersey, where there currently seems to be some disagreement over my removal of all the external links. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

ColonelHenry, I agree with you that most New Jersey wineries are small, but I disagree with your statement that "most wineries are selling ersatz wines with out-of-state grapes". State law severely restricts the use of out of state grapes. NJ Wine (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

State and federal law restricts the use of out-of-state grapes in AVA-labelled wines. Looking through websites and press reviews of 20 of NJ's wineries, mention or advertise NJ-winery chardonnays and merlots made with Chilean and Californian grapes. NJ wineries advertise wines using grapes that can't grow in NJ. When you try to figure out how NJ makes 1.72 million gallons of wine and look at vineyard production yields and other state ag stats, almost two-thirds of the grapes had to come from somewhere that isn't NJ.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Dealu Mare Vineyard

This one really confused me: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dealu Mare Vineyard. The article is faithful to the source, but the source seems to confuse terminology, referring to small towns as "regions" and a large area encompassing many "regions" as a "vineyard". And that source looks official. See my comment in the AfD. If anyone knows anything about Romanian wine, please weigh in! ~Amatulić (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not an expert on Romania wine by any stretch but the Wine Atlas seems to confirm it is a wine subregion rather than a winery or vineyard. However, their spelling seems to differ from other sources so I don't know what article title would be best to move it to. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not more confusing than the French habit of using the word vignoble to variously refer to anything from a small vineyard of half hectare to an entire wine region. I've often come across literal translations as "vineyard". Possibly Romanian, as a related language, invites to the same type of translation... Tomas e (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've got it exactly right -- see the last comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dealu Mare Vineyard. Although the Romanian word is not related to the French one, it has the same two meanings, hence (as with French) it's easy to choose the wrong term when translating into English. Andrew Dalby 20:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Oxford Companion to Wine is the 46th most cited reference book on Wikipedia

Thought this was pretty cool. The site (updated in June 2012) also has a list of the 491 articles that the OCW has been cited in. Still need to cite it in about 200 more articles to crack the Top 25. Anyone up to the challenge? :P Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Umm... is that book really so reliable above and beyond all other possible references, that it needs a citation everywhere possible? Surely there are other wine reference works written by equally qualified experts in the field? I know you meant your comment in jest, but something just doesn't feel right about deliberately making Wikipedia rely more heavily on that one source.

Diversity is a good thing. In that top 100 list, I can see a few that deserve to be there, as well as some that may be over-represented.

I note with personal interest that there's a bit of diversity regarding military sujbects, showing both Jane's (a definitive resource for historical military hardware in my professional experience) and Air Force Combat Units of WWII about equal, although I'd say fas.org is just as significant in stature, but they are online only, not a book, so they're not listed. Which brings up the question, are there online resources about wine with comparable significance to the OCW? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it was in jest :) I was actually surprised to even see any wine reference in the Top 100 list because A.) We have so many unreferenced articles and 2.) It feels like we tend to have quite a bit of diversity in our wine reference texts. I know from my sandbox ref list that I've got 16 wine books that I regularly go to for various wine topics and another 12 that I've used at least once. But, truth be told, I do think the OCW is probably one of the most reliable and comprehensive wine source out there. It pretty much is the wine world's version of Jane's, Norton/Grove and CRC Handbook, etc. As for online sources, outside of the VIVC page, I really don't think there is anything as comprehensive and useful as the OCW. A lot of online sources tend to be sponsored by wineries and tourism boards which can be very bias and subjective so I tend to shy away from them. But I have found Ablegrape.com to be a useful search engine for some wine topics. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Amatulić, I'd be very happy to hear of other sources as good and widely useable for wine-related subjects as OCW! Because I don't know any! Tom Stevenson's encyclopedia, for example, is much more filled up with general regional overviews + thumbnail sketch of producers per region, not by encyclopedic entries per subject. By the way, I'm looking forward to the 1280 pages of Wine Grapes: A complete guide to 1,368 vine varieties, including their origins and flavours by Jancis et al., due to be published in October... :-) Tomas e (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

GASP! goes to pre-order. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. Nearly all of those would count as "tertiary sources", deprecated at WP:RSN, but evidently indispensable in some fields ... In the case of wine, to comment on Amatulić's point "Surely there are other wine reference works written by equally qualified experts in the field?" well, yes there are, but none of them (so far as I know) has half the range and detail of the OCW. It's not the authors' qualifications (though of course we have to pay attention to that), it's the usefulness and accuracy of the book. As to online resources, I certainly know of none that match up to the OCW. Andrew Dalby 12:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are cited all over wikipedia--any article that has the tag that it is derived from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica or the Catholic Encyclopedia attests to the need to use tertiary sources. One article I worked on years ago, the only source was E.B. Another article on a minor composer, the only source was Grove's. Some Greek and Roman authors are only known because of a footnote-esque mention in another's work, but are memorialized in a tertiary source. Sometimes, despite MOS policies, it's the only course we have to keep the mission of spreading knowledge going. The Oxford Companion to Wine is a credible source, but I'm surprised the book that started me into an interest in wine isn't here: Lichine's Encyclopedia of Wines and Spirits. Remember, though, most of the people who use wikipedia probably think that No. 6 on that list of most-referenced books--Kirk's Dictionary of the Fungi (1,464 citations)--is a style guide for the aspiring fun guy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI nearing Wikipedia's 4 millionth article milestone

We're getting really close to hitting our 4 millionth article with 3,997,463 articles as of this posting. At the current rate it looks like we'll hit the milestone in 3-4 days. While the odds of getting a wine article the honor of being the 4 millionth is very slim (Reminds me of playing the "Cyclone" ticket prize game as a kid :P), it none the less wouldn't be a bad idea to dust off some of our old sandbox articles and think about getting them spruced up enough to go live. We could make this a "New Wine Article Weekend". You never know, we might capture lightening in a bottle which would be a fun honor for the project to achieve. Just something to think about. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The 4 millionth article arrived to a rousing cheer from nearly 1,000 people in the middle of a Wikimania keynote at GWU in Washington. Unfortunately no wine was allowed into the lecture theatre to celebrate. We made up for it in the evening :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Vigneron or Winemaker?

I look at Joseph Gilbert (vigneron), an early Australian winemaker, and looking at the category:Australian winemakers, he is the only one with the (vigneron) clarification, while several others are shown as (winemaker). Should this title be changed to winemaker? I am asking wine project members to answer this question, and if the answer is yes, then someone should make the change. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, the traditional translation of vigneron is 'vintner' (in BE) and winemaker will do - at least from my point of view as a professional translator and grower of a few acres of grapes in France. Anyone is welcome to double check dictionaries/thesauri and make any necessary changes. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like using "vigneron" for an Austrlian winemaker might be either (1) an attempt to make the article's subject sound pseudo-sophisticated by exaggerating a lowly winemaker with a chic French bon mot or (2) an article written by a fellow frenchman? Your few acres of grapes (hectare?) would go great with some of my summer barbeque. Do you make your own wine or sell the grapes to un autre vigneron? --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The grapes go to the local cooperative that makes Lirac AOC and the generic Côtes du Rhône AOC. Not quite as full bodied as the CdR from the other side of the river. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As this is the English wikipedia, I would think it would be best if we are consistent with using the English (winemaker) dab. However, since you do see vigneron sometimes in English texts, I wouldn't be opposed to having the exception that the French winemakers who require disambiguation use the (vigneron) dab. Would anyone be opposed to adopting that kind of standard? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No objections. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No objections. The Americans likely wouldn't recognize "vintner." --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC) (one of the few who would know the difference.)

• @Agne27: Quick question/hypothetical: What should we do in the rare scenario that we have a few (i.e. more than two) vignerons with the same name? --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is not a middle name to help with disambiguation, I suppose we could move on to wine regions like John Smith (California winemaker) and John Smith (Australian winemaker). What do you think? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I like that, but see that it can only work different wine regions. We are posed with a quandary, absent middle names, if we encounter articles about 3 John Smiths working in Napa Valley? Do we put John Smith (California winemaker No. 1), use dates, or is there another schema? In NJ there are two wineries in the same AVA with winemakers bearing the same name. Right now, I don't see that being a problem as they aren't nowhere near notable for inclusion, but perhaps someday...I ask more from curiosity than concern.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

States in the US are divided in to lower administrative areas, how about narrowing the winemakers down to counties to dab them? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if we have that close of name/AVA and regions with notable winemakers, we'll probably just have to handle it on a case-by-case basis. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

On a case-by-case basis probably would be the more prudent course. It might be easier than we think to get a middle initial, or middle name, or some other identifier that distinguishes one John Smith from another John Smith. Sometimes, especially in a BLP situation, we can just as quickly contact the person than search by google for more info. We should stick with keeping things at the state/country (1st instance) and region (2nd/3rd instance) level, i.e. "French winemaker", "California winemaker", or "Minnesota winemaker" and if a second or third shows up "Rhone Valley winemaker" "Napa Valley winemaker" as county/municipal names would lengthen article titles and prove more unwieldy than useful--i.e. compare "John Smith (Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi winemaker)" or John Smith (Jefferson, Mississippi winemaker) all for people who would be barely notable in the first place when compared with figures of more popular import (i.e. Robert Mondavi, etc.).--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"She actually is a winemaker"

While cleaning up Category:Winemakers and looking for dab issues I came across this article about a Czech actress (Susanna Martinková) that ends with the odd line "She actually is a winemaker." It looks be to sourced to an offline Italian magazine but doing a google search for "Susanna Martinková wine" or winemaker doesn't bring up anything worthwhile (at least not in English) nor can I seem to find any online version of the Italian magazine. Anyone have any thoughts about what to do with this article or somewhere that we might be able to find Czech and/or Italian sources to verify that this actress belongs in the winemaker cat? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Some mention of a Susanna/Susana Martinkova involved in wine here and here but can't find confirmation it is the same person. Camw (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw the second link but not knowing Italian, I also couldn't verify if it is the same person. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This forum [3] says it is the same person, and is citing the same magazine that is already cited on our page. That appears to be confirmation that our citation is good. Andrew Dalby 13:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That link would indicate such, but it's rather vague and indirect. The forum author said the actress spoke a bit about wine on the (TV?) interview, that he looked for and found the name of the winery, contact info, but he was too scared to call her up, lamenting accanto al nome c'e' un cellulare...e se fosse il SUO?? io non ho il coraggio di digitare quel numero, se mi rispondesse lei mi imbarazzerei troppo (trans. "there is a name with a cell phone number...and if it was her? I do not have the courage to call the number and don't know how to respond if she was also embarassed") So I would take it he didn't confirm it entirely either. We would have to find the Nocturno interview in order to verify what was said about fine wine at length.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If they are one and the same, I would hope that she's a better winemaker than an actress. She was horrible on film. I can take a look in the next day or two through some Italian sources and to confirm/see what gems can be gleaned. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I changed the text from "She actually is a winemaker" to "She is now a winemaker", on the grounds that Italian "attualmente" often equates to British "now"/American "currently". But, yes, we still need that confirmation. The German and Italian wikis say she retired from the cinema in 1999, but they don't continue the story from there. Andrew Dalby 15:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Core Contest

Looks like Wikipedia:The Core Contest is coming back and will run through the month of August. While there are not many wine-related articles on the list of eligible articles to work, there are few of the big over reaching articles that are somewhat related:

• Alcohol (Currently B class for WikiProject Chemicals and C class for WikiProject Spirits. We don't have a tag on it.)
• Alcoholic beverage (Currently C class for WikiProject Food and drink. We don't have a tag on it)
• Grape (Currently C class for us and WikiProject Plants)

Surprising, none of our Top Importance articles are listed but the rules does say other articles can be nominated if a case could be argued for its "core-ness" and need for improvement. If we're interested, I think we could make a case for a couple of our articles like:

• Wine (Currently B class for us but at 70,879 bytes and 93 refs, it would hard to show much improvement even the article does need quite a bit of work if it is to ever make FA) Obviously since it is a Wikipedia:Vital articles.
• Winemaking (Currently C class with 5 refs and 36,996 bytes) Outside of wine, this and Viticulture (which we probably should make a Top Importance article) are, IMO, the 3 most important articles in the project.
• Viticulture (Currently C class with 14 refs and 20,101 bytes) same as above.
• Vitis vinifera (Currently C class with 14 refs and 17,490 bytes) significant plant species
• Vitis (Currently C class with 9 refs and 16,923 bytes) Genus is even more significant

Probably a little harder to win points for its "core-ness" but still pretty significant articles from a project point of view that are below B class and maybe worth tackling just for our benefit would be:

• Italian wine (C class with 13 refs and 23,405 bytes--Top Importance)
• Rosé (C class with 14 refs and 12,078 bytes)
• Ampelography (Start class with 1 ref and 6,085 bytes)
• History of wine (C class with 35 refs and 34,314 bytes)
• Red wine (Start class with no refs and 9,917 bytes)
• White wine (Start class with no refs and 2,047 bytes) Though admittedly, I'm not sure of the value of the red and white wine articles that just regurgitate what should be in the wine and winemaking articles.
• Vineyard (Start with 4 refs and 12,478 bytes)
• Winery (Start with 7 refs and 8,162 bytes)

I don't know if there is any interest in doing a project entry into the Core Contest but I thought I would throw this out there. While I will be traveling the first half of August, I will offer my help to anyone who wants to make a go at the contest. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably a bit time-short during August to launch myself fully into this, but if there were some articles in particular the project were working on then I could try to help a little bit here and there. Camw (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a worthwhile project, and if I were unemployed and snowed indoors I'd endeavour to chip in as much as I could. These are still tough times for WPwine-contributing for me I'm afraid. deMURGH ^talk 22:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like our wine grape articles are getting an even higher profile on Google

Check out this blog entry from Vinography about what Google is doing now when people search for certain wine grape varieties. This may be Obvan area that we want to put some additional focus on, especially in hunting down quality free use grape photos. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability of regional wine personalities and wine bloggers

There is an interesting AfD going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Townsin about a wine writer for British Columbia wine (who also does some self publishing children books and music). Living up here in the Pacific Northwest, I am slightly unobjective because I frequently visit BC wine events and I've seen Troy around many times (though as I said in the AfD, I've never personally met him). Because he was so active in the BC wine industry this initially made me feel like he was a weak keep but as I reasoned more about it I switched to weak delete and finally delete. But I do think this is a good opportunity for the wine project to discuss a little bit about what makes a regional wine personality notable enough to merit an article and inclusion in our List of wine personalities article. Off the top of my head, I can think of several bloggers/wine writers that have stronger claims to notability than Troy Townsin yet I would still say they were marginally notable--like Roy Hersh at For the Love of Port, Sean Sullivan of the Washington Wine Report, Rusty Gaffney of the Pinot Files, etc. Regardless of which way you feel about Townsin in the AfD, it would be good to get some ideas about people's feeling on blogger/wine writer notability. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Potential WP:COI over at Est! Est!! Est!!! di Montefiascone to keep an eye on

We may have a winery that produces wine from this Italian DOC trying to white wash any criticism of the DOC from the article both as a user with the same name as the winery and potentially also as an IP. The objectionable material is criticism of the DOC by Hugh Johnson, Jancis Robinson, Joe Bastianich and David Lynch that are all quoted verbatim and sourced to the text where the quotes appear. Obviously criticism needs to be as neutrally presented as possible and if there are better ways to present it then I opened as discussion on the article's talk page where that can be discussed. But right now it seems like this winery wants to completely erase any criticism of their DOC from the article and the obvious POV and COI of that could be problematic. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles used for TTB grape variety applications

Tablas Creek Vineyard recently submitted applications to get Terret noir, Picardan, Vaccarese and Bourboulenc approved as varieties for US vineyards. They posted a photo of one of their applications and Lo and Behold there's our Wikipedia article on Terret Noir right there as part of their application packet. :) Good to know our articles are being put to good use. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Link didn't work - but surely they don't approval to grow grapes? Is this covered in some article here? Rmhermen (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need to friend Tablas Creek on facebook to see it but here is a direct link to their facebook page which has the photo if you scroll down a little. You don't necessarily need approval to grow the grapes but if you plan on making wine from them, you need to have the grapes officially recognized with official names, etc so you can put the grape on the label. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's basically the same within the EU, although a few things were simplified 2-3 years ago when the regulations were overhauled. There is (or at least used to be) a list of all grape varieties for each country that were allowed to be used for wine. For example, not all table grapes may be used for wine, and non-vinifera varieties are more or less banned from Europe (some hybrids are accepted as vinifera although they may contain e.g. some Vitis amurensis in their pedigree). So if you want to start cultivating a grape variety that has previously not been cultivated in your country, and actually use it in wine you sold, you need(ed) to have it introduced on that list. Then there are specific regulations for all quality wines but that's another story. :-) Tomas e (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. generally isn't as tightly regulated. And I see that there is no approval requirement to grow new grapes or to use them in wine but only to use the variety name on the label. So apparently new varieties can be used in generic or unique named wines. (Interesting since most European wine isn't varietal labelled - but they legislate what varieties can be used.) Rmhermen (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not just varietal wines, even if you make a blend and include the percentages of the varieties used, you still need to use only officially approved grapes with their approved named. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Also, if the facebook link still doesn't work here is Tablas Creek's blog posting about it with the picture showing our Wikipedia page in their application packet. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The English Grape Wars might need help

If this is an actual serious event that merits coverage, this new editor at WP:AFC could probably use some help: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The English Grape Wars. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I must confess that I never heard about this before and the line about these wars bringing an end to grape cultivation/wine making in the UK is flat out false. There has always been winemaking in the UK but the climate there is not as favorable as other regions of Europe and England's long relationship with Bordeaux and Portugal gave English wine drinkers many other options. Hugh Johnson's Vintage: A History of Wine (a British Master of Wine) devotes several chapters to the English's influence on the wine industry as well as their attempts at making their own but makes no mention of this "Grape War" and even talks about two "famous" English wine-growing estates during the mid-18th century from Surrey--Westbrook and Painshill Park. Similarly there is no mention of this event in the The Oxford Companion to Wine edited by another British Master of Wine, Jancis Robinson, or in The Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia by British wine expert Tom Stevenson who devotes many pages to the history and current wine industry of the British Isles. Also considering that none of the sources provided at the AFC even mention this event, I wouldn't be surprised if this is just a hoax. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This is something to take to the British history people rather than us wine people. Grapes aside, the article makes a claim of something on a scale of a medium-sized civil war happening in the UK in 1806, with several thousands involved and at least hundreds, if not thousands of dead, and not a single source to back that claim up, because none of the so-called "references" has anything to do with this civil war. That type of event would definitely have made its mark in the history books. I'd say that it has "hoax" written in big letters all over it, and I think that type of contributions should be strongly discoraged. Tomas e (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wine Grapes by Robison, Harding & Vouillamoz

I just wanted to mention that I received my freshly printed copy of Wine Grapes today, and thought it deserved an article of its own. I expect that we're going to use it extensively as a reference for our articles on grape varieties, and will keep us (or at least me) busy for quite a while. Definitely a must-have for the amateur wine encyclopedian. :-) By pure coincidence, I noted a few days ago that many of the beautiful colour plates from Pierre Viala & Victor Vermorel's ampelography (published in 1901-1910), used in Wine Grapes, are also available as Commons files since about one year, where there is a category for them. They've been uploaded by French Wikipedia users. Tomas e (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent find with the Viala and Vermorel. Those are some nice images. I'm also green with envy over you having the Wine Grapes book. It won't be released in the US till Nov 6th and even then at $110 US, I may need to wait to Christmas before I get my grubby little hands on it. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Have any of you guys been following the Gibraltarpedia stuff at DYK?

• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltar_hooks_RfC
• Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Gibraltar.2C_again

While I think paid/incentive editing should be discouraged, I'm surprised at the hubbub over the so call "flood" of Gibraltar-related hooks on the Main Page and that they're actually talking about doing a topic ban. I had to laugh when the Slate article called the appearance of 17 Gibraltar related hooks in one month "jaw dropping" when there has been several periods when WP:WINE was cranking out 20+ DYKs a month regularly. Now, of course, none of us were likely getting paid for these activities (I think :P) it actually galls me a little bit all the attention these Gibraltar articles are getting. I'm tempted to get revved up again and crank out some new wine articles/stub expansions over to DYK to see if that catches anyone's eyes. Maybe after a month or so we could write a Winemaking in Gibraltar article if it hasn't been created yet. ;) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Outside opinions sought for an EL addition at American Viticultural Area

There is a new user that has been working to get a link from his website, American Winery Guide, added to this article because it features an interactive Google map of all the AVAs. The user has been cordial and engaged me on my talk page so I've opened a discussion on the AVA talk page about adding the link. Personally, I do think the map has some merit for inclusion (though I would prefer a direct EL to the map instead of just to the websites main page) but the clear WP:COI and seemingly single purpose activity of the account in just adding links raised a red flag. That said, if an uninvolved editor looks at the link and feels it is worthwhile inclusion to the AVA article then I will not object at all. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Burn and restart at Ruffino

For whatever reasons, Ruffino was on my watchlist (not usually a wine editor), and I dropped in because I noticed User:RuffinoWines editing the article. It was some minor promo stuff, so I reverted and left them a friendly CoI suggestion. But then I noticed the article itself was in pretty poor shape, and had been tagged for years. Accordingly, I removed everything and replaced it with just a stub paragraph, full sourced with RS footnotes. It's slightly unfortunate because the History section had some interesting stuff (which may well be citeable and restoreable), but the rest of the article was mostly promo/cruft.

Posting here in case anyone is interested in the Ruffino brand and wants to drop in and add a little more cited history, or viticultural technical stuff about the company. Also wouldn't hurt to get a few more Watchers on the page, now that the company has taken an interest in editing it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The old text from 2009 had probably been added by the winery as well, since Rdo1987 (talk · contribs) only ever has edited the Ruffino article. Tomas e (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured portal review

Portal:Wine has been nominated for a featured portal review and may lose its status as a featured portal. Reviewers' concerns are set out here. Please leave your comments (which can include "keep" or "delist") and help the portal to be of featured quality. The instructions for the review process are here. --ELEKHH^T 22:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Subscription to Appellation America

Just as an FYI, I've finally broke down and got a subscription to Appellation America so I can access their content. Before they went behind a paywall, they were an extremely useful source for info every American Viticultural Area, American wine laws and coverage of grape varieties grown throughout the US. I know we don't have that many editors working on US content but if anyone is interested in accessing some of the AA material for any articles just let me know. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible COI

I noticed that User:Weinplus's edit seem to be related adding sources to a website with a similar name. Didn't look closely enough into it to see if it was SPAM or a conflict of interest issue but thought the project here should be made aware of it. Rmhermen (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly a COI, and now blocked as a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy, but that editor is free to create a new account or post an unblock request.

The edits appear constructive, just maintenance edits to existing links to weinplus.eu, apparently because the directory paths to certain pages have changed. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In the past, I've found the Wein-Plus website (more specifically its Glossary part) to be a very good reference, both for topics related to German wine, grape varieties and history of wine topics. I used it many times some years ago. The few edits I looked into seemed to update URLs going to Wein-Plus (probably references mostly added by me in the past), rather than to add new ones. So I'd definitely consider the edits constructive. Tomas e (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The user is unblocked and the account renamed. Now Cmstammen (talk · contribs). ~Amatulić (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Champagne Krug proposed rewrite by the Champagne House

For those who have not been watching page, the Champagne Krug house has long expressed an interest in updating their Wikipedia article and have been communicating on the article's talk page with the user account of User:Champagne Krug that has the introduction of Margareth Henriquez, President & CEO of the House of Krug and includes a long letter explaining their interest in the Wikipedia article. Throughout this process the house has been considerably transparent and mindful of Wikipedia's WP:COI policies. On the talk page they have posted their most recent proposal for a page rewrite at Talk:Champagne_Krug#Collaborative_project_with_The_House_of_Krug_4. While it obviously need some MOS and wikifying work, I would greatly appreciate some help in reviewing it for bias and POV. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

And I'm going to need to block that account as a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I get that but that does seem to conflict with the goals of WP:COI in encouraging parties with obvious COI to be open and transparent in their dealing with Wikipedia. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, as an FYI, since the Krug account is block I've emailed them using Wikipedia's email system about some issues with their propose re-write and will probably continue communicating with them off-wiki as long as they don't have an on-wiki means of communication. This also means that I will probably be the one editing and working on the Krug article, moving over the acceptable, sourced and non-promotional aspects of the rewrite to the article. Even though I have no COI whatever with Krug, I still want to try and keep this as transparent as possible. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no conflict. The editor is free to create an account with a personal name and the company name appended. Or just a personal name and disclose the COI on the user page. Wikipedia can't have usernames that represent a role, group, or organization. Wikipedia operates under a set of legal attribution rules that require contributions to be attributable to individuals. Therefore, all usernames must represent an individual real person. Organizational or role accounts can potentially be operated by multiple people, and we can't have that.

Also, even while blocked, they can still use their own talk page to communicate. And this particular block is known as a "softer" block in that it blocks only the logged-in account, but doesn't block the user's IP address or prohibit the user from creating a new account. This is standard practice for well-behaved COI accounts in which the username is the only problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Some articles that are worth a look

I greatly respect the work of User:Dr. Blofeld and am always tickled pink when he turns his prolific attention to wine related articles. However, I'm not sure what I think about the promotional tone in the articles relating to Twomey Cellars and Silver Oak Cellars. While the wineries are individuals are notable and the articles are, overall, very well done (as typical of Blofeld's work), I do think they will need some tweaking to remove some of the overly flowery praise and to make them a little less WP:WINEGUIDE-ish. I'm going to drop him a note asking about his contact with the two wineries as well as about his name change of the Racking article to Soutirage. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• David Duncan (vintner)
• Ben Cane
• Justin Meyer
• A&K Cooperage
• Jean-Claude Berrouet
• Ray Duncan
• Daniel Baron

Tons of stubs on New Jersey wineries of questionable notability created

Check out the list at Garden State Wine Growers Association though some of the names are redirected to the New Jersey wine article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• The winery articles that redirect to New Jersey wine were a temporary measure when User:DavidinNJ and I worked to improve List of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in New Jersey (eventually, we'd like to bring it up to FL quality per the criteria there). Previously, the list was a collection of redlinks and the question was asked then whether the list was necessary. Per WP:RED, redlinks are permissible if there's a possibility that an article could spring from it in the near future, and because they help wikipedia grow. We took the opportunity to look into it. The articles on wineries are one of many projects that we are involved in regarding alcohol industry topics in New Jersey (we expect our comprehensive article Alcohol laws of New Jersey will be promoted to FA in the near future). Over the last few weeks, we've started articles on the wineries after amassing information from relevant books, newspaper and media coverage, NJ's ABC filings, and other sources. Further, we spent considerable time in developing a proper format for the articles to meet the tests of notability, verifiability, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, so they weren't running afoul of WP:WINEGUIDE or WP:CORP. We assert that they are worthy of inclusion because these wineries have been covered in multiple non-trivial, reliable published works, and several of the wineries involved in larger events (i.e., Judgment of Princeton). This is a long-term project in constant development, and we look forward to any suggestions for improvement on the topic.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• As a resident inclusionist around here, I'll say some (many?) of these are probably not notable, just looking briefly. Cites to a NJ winery guide with no specific claim to importance or prominence of the winery (including significant awards)? I don't see it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• As I said, project in development. We're constantly revising each of them as we find more and more information. I have next to go through the princeton tasting results and add information. Err on the side of inclusion here as things get built. If it sits idle and never amounts to anything, then act accordingly.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the wineries (such as Renault Winery and Sylvin Farms Winery) are certainly notable and deserving of articles but wineries whose sources are only just local reviews, the winery's own website and wine guides are not. Having such limited sources leads to limited content and articles like that are prone to sounding like just wine guide entries or WP:ADVERTs noting things like how Alba Vineyard doesn't hold events at the winery, Vacchiano Farm which only has its wines available for purchase at Farmer's market, how many cases per year that customers can have shipped to them from wineries like Four Sisters Winery, Cape May Winery & Vineyard, Westfall Winery, etc. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agne, The articles in question were written in a manner to be a neutral source of information, and utilize a standard format which lists acreage under cultivation, cases per year, AVA, types of grapes used, etc. They are not an advertisment - they do not rate the wines, they do not use peacock terms to describe the wines, they do not mention awards won, they do not list prices, nor do they list specific places where the wine can be bought. The listing of 12 cases per year per customer is an explanation of the regulations for New Jersey's plenary and farm winery licenses, not an advertisement. These winery articles, and the summary at list of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in New Jersey are one of the only places online where a reader can get consistent factual information about New Jersey wineries. Because of your concern about mentioning that a winery holds events, I removed that clause from the page for Alba Vineyard and a handful of other articles.
• As for notability, the requirement is coverage by independent, reliable sources. Many of these wineries have significant coverage in Bart Jackson's Garden State Wineries Guide, Sal Westrich's New Jersey Wine, and Marilyn Schmidt's Wines and Wineries of New Jersey. Besides the three boooks, a number of wineries have stories on them in The Press of Atlantic City, The Star Ledger, The New York Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and other well-known newspapers. DavidinNJ (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization move request at Talk:Vidal Blanc

I was planning a mass-move request later this year for several of the inconsistently capitalized "blanc" and "noir" articles but another user went ahead and put in a WP:RM for Vidal blanc. While all new articles are being written with the consistent capitalization of lower casing the color descriptors, housekeeping on some of these older articles is an ongoing process. Again, we'll probably put in a mass-move request at some future date but if any folks feel like dropping a comment at this current request it will probably help make that later mass-move go more smoothly. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agne, you're actually wrong on this. Check your copy of Wine Grapes and you'll see that all grape names are capitalized throughout, which is also what the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) specifies. In previous discussions about the subject on this page, I've never seen anyone being able to point to any other authoritative source than ICNCP. So, yes, we should move the some of the pages, but to make sure that they all follow ICNCP. Tomas e (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Tomas, Wine Grapes is but one of many wine reference texts that all follow their own personal convention--in this case, Jancis Robinson's. Other authors and wine texts follow their own convention such as Carole Meredith, A. J. Winkler, Maynard Amerine and the National Grape Registry of the United States that will lowercase the color descriptor. There are even some wine authors (such as Karen MacNeil and Joseph Bastianich) who don't capitalize anything at (i.e. cabernet sauvignon, pinot noir). What makes them any less authoritative of an example than Jancis? We're never going to have a single definitive pattern to follow so the point here is to be consistent. As noted on the RM, the convention of only capitalizing the cultivar name and not the color descriptor was in place even before the Wine Project was founded.

Also, can you show where in the ICNCP does it mention anything about wine grapes? Searching the 206 page 8th edition I can't find anything about wine, Vitis vinifera, viticulture, Pinot, Cabernet, noir or anything in the table of contents or index that would seem to indicate it is speaking about our issue. The closest I could find is a mention on page 34, recommendation 21G that "Ex.63. Names with the cultivar epithets ‘Blanche’ (a given name for a woman or French for “white”), ‘Large’, ‘Large White’, ‘Double Red’, ‘Ogon’ (Japanese for “gold” or “golden”), and ‘Variegated’ should be avoided." Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's a right and wrong ... We would need to choose an authority, and they obviously differ. If we decide to follow the ICNCP, that does seem to imply capitalization for each significant word in a cultivar name. But the French wikipedia, for example, doesn't follow it for grape varieties. So French wikipedia, in running text, has "Red Delicious" apple (either to agree with ICNCP, or for some other reason I can't guess) but "cabernet sauvignon" grape. Andrew Dalby 10:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agne, I disagree with making part of the name lowercase. It's part of a proper name, and so it should be capitalized. This is not exclusive to grapes, but is true for most agriculture breed name. Here is a list of types of tomatoes and types of cattle, and color descriptors are in most cases capitalized. DavidinNJ (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Graach an der Mosel is a proper name and having only "Graach" and "Mosel" capitalized doesn't make it any less proper of a name. It is the same with Vidal blanc. Vidal, as the cultivar, should always be capitalized but being consistent in not capitalizing the color descriptor should not be an issue.

Full confession. When I started editing Wikipedia 7 years ago (today! actually), I capitalized everything. Probably because Jancis Robinson is my rockstar and I was just following her example. But then I became aware of the standard convention that was being used on grape articles dating back to 2005 and re-affirmed in 2007 so I changed because it is in Wikipedia's best interest to be consistent.

As Andrew Dalby notes, there isn't a right or wrong and even the French Wikipedia is internally inconsistent across different subjects. Reliable, authoritative sources such as the National Grape Registry maintain by UC-Davis and the United States Department of Agriculture follow the standard convention of lower casing the color descriptor so it is not like Wikipedia is standing on an island in following suit. Now I'm not saying that the National Grape Registry is any more authoritative than Jancis Robinson (or Karen MacNeil and other sources who don't capitalize any part of the name at all) but we need to be consistent.

I chose to respect the convention and consensus that first emerged way back in 2005 and as the wine editor who probably does over 3/4 of the work on grape articles these days, it is the convention that is being utilized on all newly created/expanded grape articles. Again, it is in Wikipedia's best interest to strive to be consistent. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually capitalizing "an der" as "An Der" would be entirely wrong. I don't know any language where "on the" is capitalized in this context. Perhaps, maybe, if all the letters were in caps, but still...grammatically and orthographically wrong in normal typesetting.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I know but the point was that there are sometimes parts of proper names that are not capitalized (for whatever reason) and that doesn't make them any less proper. Another example, if you prefer, is that in some last names von is capitalized (Dita Von Teese) in others it is not (Lars von Trier) but both names are still proper. So just saying it is a "proper name" doesn't answer the issue that we have here with Vidal blanc. The grape is just as much a proper noun in the National Grape Registry spelled Vidal blanc as it is in Jancis Robinson's books spelled Vidal Blanc. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Dita Von Teese is hardly a good example of proper "von" usage--any more than Divine should be giving advice on matters of theology, hair or makeup.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll make a point about statistics without commenting on relevance. Google has scanned thousands of books containing the name of this grape. Google's ngram results comparing the different capitalizations shows that books refer to "Vidal Blanc" (both words capitalized) overwhelmingly over any other form. I am not sure, however, how many of those search hits on "Vidal Blanc" are chapter titles or headings using title case. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's very hard to know, especially for items like this that are very likely to appear as headings or as items in tables, which may be capitalized for other reasons. In this case, I'd suggest looking instead at Google scholar, where the clear majority of sources use lower case. In any case, WP style per MOS:CAPS is to avoid unnecessary caps. Since wine authorities differ on this, the way to be consistent with WP style is to follow the authorities consistent with us. Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I fear that I am the originator of this discussion. As per Dicklyon, all of the academic oenologists and viticulturists of my acquaintance would aggressively maintain the lower case for 'blanc' and 'noir', arguing that 'Pinot' and 'Sauvignon' are cultivars, but Pinot noir and Pinot gris are not. I am therefore not surprised that Google Scholar would support that assertion. Jancis Robinson herself apparently says in the Oxford Companion to Wine that she chooses to capitalise, despite mixed case being botanically correct [4]. However, despite my ardent support for mixed caps over the years, as a no longer active editor, I do wonder whether the way wikipedia gets bogged down in long-winded discussions on very minor issues (and I consider myself to be very guilty in this regard) impacts negatively on the project as a whole. So while I strongly believe that my position is correct (see I can't stop myself), I can only feel that we would all be better investing the time that this semi-annual discussion has taken in improving content. For this reason, I won't be digging out any WP:RS to support my position. Therefore, if you choose to go with all caps, perhaps I'll look down my nose, but if it means that people can get on peaceably with improving content, then maybe it is not a loss after all. À votre santé! Limegreen (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

new article Fort Berens Winery just posted

For a change I just posted something built in my sandbox instead of through endless stub/draft edits.....I'm not familiar with WP:WINE page formats or infoboxes......its formal name is Fort Berens Estate Winery, which I've left redlinked rather than make a redirect, as it may be the better/preferable title. I have a bunch of studies yet to add to the External Links which are about the Fraser Canyon region as a whole, from Lillooet, British Columbia south to almost Boston Bar, British Columbia, encompassing several weather stations and more, which I'll add in a little while. Lillooet wine region is new in BC, and for now this is the only commercial vinyard there, but it looks as though Texas Creek Ranch, about 15 miles south of Fort Berens Winery, maybe be next up......didn't add climate information, though some is in the refs and there's detailed info on Lillooet's page and on that article's talkpage, where I've linked the aforesaid viticulture studies. See also list of wine regions started drafting on Talk:British Columbia wine, which I don't have time (or inclination) to complete, though "built" it, with cites, so far.Skookum1 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that Louis Pasteur, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 07:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

IWSC deletion

Any thoughts from the denizens here on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Wine and Spirit Competition? In spite of being one of the top 3 competitions of the world, by Wikipedia's definition of 'notability' the coverage admittedly lacks depth. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Pearmund Cellars

Why is it, that if you take any non-notable small-to-midsize California winery and plunk it down in Virginia, suddenly it's notable? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearmund Cellars seems to be one such example, although I'll agree it's a keeper if some better sources come up.

Here the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) would be useful as an official guideline. I believe the objections about it that have been raised in the past have been addressed and the guideline modified accordingly. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

New Collaboration Efforts?

Things have been quiet around this project for some time. Are there any new or existing articles that people would be interested to collaborate on - maybe an article of the month effort or similar? That is, if there is anyone left reading here! Camw (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I agree with your sentiment, but it seems a lot of the WikiProjects are languishing in a lack of coordinated activity. This one might be a result of its international reach causing editors to focus on parochial projects instead of more cosmopolitan ones (how many Americans are hankering to edit West Australia wine, or Georgia wine (yes, *that* Georgia). Looking at the project page, I notice we don't have any FA or FL articles. This is probably the only WikiProject I know of where the chart doesn't have at least one article or list at the featured level. We should choose one article a month to bring up to FA status. User:DavidinNJ and I've been working on New Jersey wine intermittently over the last few months, and it has been my desire to see it as at least a GA, preferably an FA in the near future. Right now I've got an FAC and FLC pending, and a lot of real life work, so my time is limited...but I'm up for collaboration if we can jumpstart this project again. Reach out to User:Agne27 who has been very active in wine-related content in recent months. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Colonel, I think that it would be fairly easy to get New Jersey wine to GA status. It's close to it now - just need some formating changes. As for WikiProject Wine, I agree that people are a bit reluctant to edit articles on wine from other parts of the world. However, I think anybody with some knowledge of wine can review any wine article. I'm not going to volunteer to write an article about South African wine, but I'd be glad to review such an article. DavidinNJ (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

First, I think the WikiProject Wine page needs a major redesign, it's not userfriendly and I hate using it because I can't find anything whenever I do look.

I think Agne27 and I could probably hammer out a South African wine article if needed, but I admit it's not something I think about often enough to have an impetus driving my efforts. Another issue I notice is that we don't have any guidelines on wine beyond the notability standard (which needs revision). This article could foster easier collaboration if there were established expectations of how certain articles should be organized.

Guidelines: the project needs:

• Article naming guidelines: to avoid Vidal blanc vs. Vidal Blanc debates.
• a guideline for content in a wine region article (i.e. discussing sections on (1) history, (2) terroir/geology/climate, (3) grapes grown/fruit grown, (4) production information, (5) legal issues and obstacles to cultivation/production, (6) notable wineries (7) definitions of regions and subregions). I base this off our work on New Jersey wine.
• guidelines for content in articles on grape varieties (something similar to the organization for birds...taxonomy/ancestry (especially for hybrids), growing habits (including susceptibility to fungus, rots, etc.), distribution/habitat conditions, use in wines.
• To revise the winery notability guideline, and how to organize wine business articles.

Just a few ideas, but it's a lot of work. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Colonel, those are all stellar ideas and I would wholeheartedly support putting those kinds of guidelines in place. The only problem is that I'm not sure who is willing to do the heavy lifting of actually hammering out what those guidelines should be. It pretty much seems to be just a handful of us popping in and out of this place intermittently. User:Tomas e checks in from time to time and would certainly have some worthwhile ideas about this guidelines as would User:Amatulic when he's not busy with Admin work. I can offer my own ideas but will have a little too much outside life projects on my plates to be the main driving force for this endeavor. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, since this thread hadn't been archived yet, I suppose I could add a few thoughts although it's been almost two months. I agree with Agne, if the issue is less "work" getting done compared to previously (and this project is not exactly alone in that), I think it is overambitious to start to write new overarching guidelines or do other rather time-consuming and difficult project-wide tasks. Try to find one or two other editors within the project with a reasonably similar interest but a more narrow scope than (e.g. some geographical focus?), and I'm sure that will do miracles for related articles. What have kept me worried over the time I've been less active in the project (the last two years or so), are mainly two things: the risk of the standard slipping for which wine producers that are notable, and vandalism and minor corruption (sometime non-malevolent due to misunderstanding) of less-read wine articles, which would lead to a deterioriating quality of the articles. This type of "housekeeping/maintenance" work may be less fun than creating new stuff, but it's important. (So I should have a bad conscience for not really contributing to it for quite some time.) Tomas e (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

As for not having any FA's, that's mostly because I've never really have had the personal drive to go out and get one done. I can do a good job of getting articles up to B class (as most of our Category:Top-importance Wine articles such as Rosé, Chardonnay, South African wine are) but haven't had the desire to invest the many hours needed to polish them up to FA level and guide them through the FAC process. There are certainly wine articles with FA potential (New Jersey wine for sure as well as Rosé, Malolactic fermentation, Yeast in winemaking, Pressing (wine) and some of the Category:B-Class Wine articles grape articles) but it would certainly need to be a collaborative effort. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ultimately, it is my goal to get New Jersey wine up to the FA standard. User:DavidinNJ and I have done a good job so far of bring the article up, and we're both in agreement that with a little bit of polishing it would be a GA in short order. If you have a few moments, could you take a look at it and give me a few ideas on what would be needed in your opinion in terms of content/polishing in preparation for an FA? It wouldn't be too much for a core of 6 editors to turn one article into an FA every two or three months.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Outside life this summer has really taken a large chunk of my time. You guys have done a fabulous job on New Jersey wine and my only recommendations would be mostly cosmetic.

• I would trim the See Also section as it is rather large with most of the links already in the article or in the New Jersey wine infobox you created.
• I'm assuming the empty Direct shipping of wine to consumers section is going to be filled in?
• Under the Industry statistics if the exact acreage of the top grape varieties were available, it would be useful to put into a table (sort of like German_wine#Grape_varieties but doesn't have to be that detailed). The color coding between white and red grape varieties are helpful since a lot of people don't readily know that Chambourcin is a red wine grape or that Niagara is a white wine grape, etc.
• Likewise it might be helpful to differentiate among the grape varieties grown in New Jersey which ones are Vitis vinifera and which are hybrid grapes. The variety of grapes grown in the state is impressive, particularly the amount of vinifera.
• It would be very helpful to have a map image showing the boundaries of the different AVAs, even if is only a locator map of New Jersey with the particular counties highlighted rather than exact boundaries.
• It would also be nice to have some images of actual New Jersey wine.

Those are just a few thoughts. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles on individual Burgundy premier crus and notability

Hello, I just wanted to check if my gut feeling regarding appellation/vineyard notability is still valid. In Burgundy, my opinion is that only grand cru vineyards are automatically notable enough for their own articles (they have been their own appellations since the AOC system was created), while the hundreds of premier crus (that have to appear together with the village name on the label) are not. They will just be listed, or discribed in the village wine article. More notable premier crus could be given their own sub-section within those articles. Keeping it at this level still means the potential for some 150 articles on the Burgundy appellations. Consequently, I just redirected Clos de Tavannes to Santenay wine (it's one of 12 premier crus in that village) and Champans to Volnay wine (it's one of 30 premier crus in that village). Any different views? Tomas e (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is no "automatically notable" on Wikipedia. Per WP:N and WP:CORP any vineyard would be per se notable if there's significant coverage on it in reliable sources independent of the vineyard. That's the standard. "Grand Cru" doesn't "automatically" confer notability. I couldn't care if it were a winery as notable as Chateau Margaux...if there were no sources for the article, it wouldn't merit inclusion. However, if an insignificant upstart winery had sufficient sources, it would. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I detect a distinctly New World and non-Burgundian thinking in your reply, since you start talking about wineries, which is definitely not the same as vineyards classified independently of their ownership. :-) WP:CORP is therefore not applicable. As to your claim about the grand crus, I seriously can't remember anyone in this project questioning that all officially recognised wine appellations having status as protected designations of origins (French AOPs or until recently AOCs, Italian DOCGs and DOCs, Spanish DOs, US AVAs ...) are notable. Is this something you suddenly disagree with? Perhaps I just assumed too much familiarity with the vineyard classification issue at hand when I didn't explain "automatic" as in "belonging to a category of entities where all are commonly considered notable". Well, well, my 6+ years of active editing and 60 822 edits (at last count, a number somewhat inflated by a lot of assessment = "easy" edits) obviously doesn't save me from "read the policy" type of replies from editors who're not even made it onto the "wacko 5000" list yet. :-) :-) :-) Tomas e (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• You take the liberty of making too many assumptions--and incorrect ones at that. With my two other previous accounts, I'd have 9.5 years of active editing over the last 12, and would have broken into that list (and that I've written a few of those policies you might need brushing up on). FYI, WP:CORP covers organizations and their products, grapes are a product of a vineyard, therefore a vineyard is a business like any other--subject to the same requirements for notability and inclusion. If someone wants to write upwards of 150 grand cru articles with notability established by reliable sources, then so be it. If not, well, who cares? There is nothing regarding wine topics that says "automatically notable"...even with your expanded definition...again you assume. If you didn't think a grand cru article topic was notable, then why redirect them as you've taken the liberty to do? If you want to be save(d) from "read the policy" type of replies from an editor who you might think beneath you from that high-and-might pedestal you esteem yourself, you probably shouldn't have asked a stupidly obvious question. As for the rest of your faux outrage and projective posturing, keep your pompous, condescending smug assumptions in Burgundy with the rest of the cheap, antifreeze-laced wine. I'll stick to writing three or four FAs a year like I already do (how many do you have? oh yeah, none. Klart som korvspad)--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks. And Tomas e is not entirely wrong as we have many rules that confer "automatic" notability. Geographic locations, schools, top level sportsmen, years, etc. Tomas e made a claim of the difference between vineyards and winery, which you seem to have not addressed. Would you say a vineyard is part of a town, therefore a town is a business or would you say that a vineyard is a geographic feature where grapes are grown? Rmhermen (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• A vineyard, in my estimation of how notability in this case cannot be automatic, is only something located in a town (akin to a pub, or a candy store, or a dry cleaners), it is nothing that is essential to defining what makes a town a town. The town can exist with or without it. At a minimum, it could be mentioned on a town article that one of the leading industries are vineyard production and mention some of the producers. However, for that vineyard to merit its own article, it has to meet the test of WP:N and its topic guidelines (to wit: WP:CORP, WP:WINEBIZ). The comparison to an incorporated municipalities (i.e. towns) being per se notable because of their geographical significance is not apposite and not cogent...I consider a vineyard more like one of the many unincorporated hamlets and villages (and I can name hundreds of examples) within a municipality that most likely aren't notable and ought to be judged on a case-by-case basis (i.e. most ought to be merged into an article about the municipality they're located in). The businesses within a municipality are not significant just because of they happen to exist...they have to earn their significance as much as they earn their revenues--i.e. the significant coverage in reliable sources is likely a proportional response to its revenue potential and how its products created are considered by their consumers. As for the permanence of a vineyard, if it weren't grapes being grown there, it could be any other agricultural commodity, or parking lots, it could be oil wells given the appropriate geology. We don't argue about onion farms unless there was a significant coverage (WP:N/WP:V/WP:RS) justification for their notability. We don't have articles on individual oil wells unless they can establish notability--i.e. how would they be exceptional--the first well in Titusville, PA, the most productive, etc. would get significant coverage, but the 110th at a site, likely not. Whether it was a vineyard, other farming operation, parking lot, or oil well as a business, it is still a business, and not a defining geographic feature or essential feature of the town. If we compare a Grand cru to an AVA...Warren Hills AVA has five vineyards/wineries, there is no AVA-growers association, there is no coordinated effort between growers to market their goods except by limited "wine trail events". The five wineries there get rather significant coverage and merit their having articles. However, being familiar with the five wineries' products, none of them in the past employed the AVA designation in the label because of their production methods vis-à-vis regulation. No one claims the AVA is notable because it can attach to five winery articles that are of sufficient notability. Lastly, the only real non-trivial source for Warren Hills AVA proffered is the CFR citation for the AVA's creation (I don't consider the Appellation America and Wine Institute sources to be substantively non-trivial, and the discussion in Jackson's wine guide is negligible). Does this article deserve to exist because of some claim of "Automatic notability" just because it's an AVA? ...no. In looking at various wine industry articles in the US, I'm tempted to merge that AVA article into the New Jersey wine article as I improve the NJW article...much like Tomas e redirected Clos de Tavannes to Santenay wine.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• To clarify, the Notability guideline for wine topics does say a region is "inherently notable", I don't interpret that as "automatically," and further I don't interpret that to mean an article on a particular defined region can't be merged into a bigger topic (i.e. like my proposed merger of Warren Hills AVA into a section of New Jersey wine). Likewise, as a big for instance, Central Delaware Valley AVA has no wineries in it...in either New Jersey or Pennsylvania, so how can it be notable as a wine region when no one makes wine there? This strikes me as a "tree falls in the woods argument"...if something like a wine region is minimally known, but relatively unsourced because of lack of coverage, does it deserve its own article just because one regulation protects it? If a merger is possible to a more notable topic, I say the answer to that is no.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Valide and publish Champagne Krug article

Hello everyone,

I am writing to you because I work for Krug and am currently involved in a project concerning Wikipedia. The House of Krug is very enthusiastic about the different Wikipedia pages you have written and moderated and would like to form stronger relations with all experienced contributors who have worked on articles about Krug on Wikipedia, as well as with Champagne and wine enthusiasts in general. Our wish is to be part of the collaborative process you have established and, with your help, to create an article that is neutral, informative and thorough.

Several months ago I proposed an article on the talk page of Champagne Krug in English,that was well-validated by one of the contributors: @Agne27 You can check the arucle here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Champagne_Krug

I would like to know if you can validate and publish the article that I propose?

Kind regards,

Tristan.sbry (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC):*

• @Tristan.sbry:, I'd be glad to collaborate with you. A colleague and I wrote a few articles on Alcohol laws of New Jersey (one of Wikipedia's featured articles), New Jersey wine, and many wineries within the state. However, given some of your past contributions, anything that happens regarding that collaboration has to comply with Wikipedia's policies on conflicts of interest and aim toward full transparency.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Robola, Robolla and Ribolla

Hello!

I noticed that page Robolla was a redirect to Ribolla Gialla, an Italian white grape "believed to have originated from Greece", whereas there is a separate page for Robola, the name for a white grape grown on the island of Cephalonia.

I wonder if it is the same grape variety called with two different names, or two different grapes, and if the pages should be merged. What do you think? In any case, what to do with the Robolla redirect? Place Clichy (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Krug article validate and publish it

• @ColonelHenry:

Hi,

Thank you very much for be part of this project. As I told you I work in a digital agency, we have done some contributions for luxury brands.

You can check them on the links below:

• Krug CEO post: • Jaeger -LeCoultre English article • Chopard

I would like to know if you can publish the article that I have proposed on the Krug Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Champagne_Krug

Kind regards,

Tristan.sbry (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP Wine in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Wine for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder: we'd love to feature WikiProject Wine in the Signpost, but this can only happen if editors respond to the interview questions. We hope to hear from you. –Mabeenot (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll have sometime tomorrow to take a look at the interview questions. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wine Advocate's Italian wine chief writer's article up for AfD

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Larner. Admittedly the article got off on the wrong foot with Larner herself (and a possible sock) starting the article. But it is, at least, far less promotional than some of the other wine bios that we have had to deal with. While the article can certainly be improved, it has been put up for deletion by folks who think that since wine writers like Larner are "not exactly Shakespeare" then they must be non-notable despite what WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR says. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Winemaker

I was surprised when editing a page about Rashi that the wikilink vintner redirects to winemaker. Was this done out of some consensus? I'm not up on wine, but I know the word vintner and the term "winemaker" sounded odd to me. I know winemaker is plainer English, but I'm surprised it's the most common usage. Ogress _smash!

Certainly in British English a vintner is a merchant rather than a winemaker (qv Worshipful Company of Vintners going back to a Royal Charter in 1364 and probably a long way earlier), but at the moment wine merchant also redirects to winemaker so it's more a reflection of a lack of coverage of the downstream trade in general. FlagSteward (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FINE+RARE

Hello, wine experts! This old abandoned Afc submission will soon by deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)