Talk:Château Mouton Rothschild

message: on the german sites are photographs, GNU licensed. :-)) 
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2teau_Mouton
: Could you upload them to Commons? I dont like to do this with other peoples pictures. Justinc 21:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

message: Oh hey look, here it is again with the California wine drum beating.  Now how'd I guess that it'd make it to every first-growth?  For a discussion on this obvious slant, go to Talk:Château Haut-Brion.  --BridgeBurner 06:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Bias 

message: :Image:MoutonRoth-Picasso.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MoutonRoth-Picasso.jpg

message: I'm fully aware of the two different label versions of the 1993 Mouton. However, this article states (without source) that ATF should have banned the nymphette, while I've read somewhere that the Château itself was worried about problems and bad reactions in the overly prude US of A, and therefore removed the drawing on their own initiative. It would be good if someone could source the correct version and update the article accordingly. In the meantime, I've -marked the statement. Tomas e (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's correct: source https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-12-28-fo-18484-story.html Frenchlovers (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: 1993 nymphette

message: As was pointed out by Agne on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domaine de Baron'arques as well as on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine#Domaine de Baron'arques:
*Domaine de Baron'arques appears to be closely related to Château Mouton Rothschild, operated as a sister estate.
*Domaine de Baron'arques would likely have gotten no secondary source attention if it weren't for this connection.
*Independent coverage appears to present Domaine de Baron'arques as a winery brand.
*There is precedent for merging smaller brand articles into the parent winery article (such as the many brands of E & J Gallo Winery.
Therefore, I tagged both articles for merging. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Being located in a separate region doesn't matter much when it comes to including a less notable wine brand in the main article of the parent wine brand. See Domaine Drouhin which is in Oregon but is best served being included in the main article of Maison Joseph Drouhin in Burgundy. AgneCheese/Wine 04:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point and, truth be told, there is nothing about a merge that isn't reversible. If later reliable sources pop up that seem to indicate that there was some pre-Mouton notability for the estate then we can always split the brand out of the article. But currently, as noted, there really isn't any notability for the estate that is not directly linked to its connection to Mouton so a merge, for now, seems like the best course. AgneCheese/Wine 15:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: True, an article on the early history could be started later if needed. Hence I revised my opinion to "support". Andrew Dalby 09:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion