Talk:Côte-Rôtie AOC

message: Moving this here per WP:WINEGUIDE AgneCheese/Wine 11:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wine grower list

message: The Syrah page seems to contradict the Probus origin hypothesis.  Incidentally, it also seems to contradict the name.  The amateur linguist in me finds Syrah originating from Syracusae somewhat more plausible than it originating from Shiraz Persia, but what do I know? 75.138.184.254 (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the Syrah page just hasn't been cleaned up and re-written. Something that will happen eventually. AgneCheese/Wine 12:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I  know  what  is meant  here: The origins of the Côte-Rôtie most famous planting-Syrah, is confirmed to be indigenous to the Rhone valley. Syrah has been genetically proven to be a cross between Mondeuse Blanche and Dureza. but  it  doesn't  quite sound very  English. And can we have a source?--Kudpung (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Source provided and added.--Kudpung (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syrah origins 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: The article is written in  GF  but  still  contains many  turns of phrase that  are not  strictly  encyclopedic, or are not  of a sufficiently  formal English. many  claims also need to be sourced. I'll  try  to  get  back to  this article and copyedit it  later, but  if anyone else can do  this,  please go  ahead.--User:Kudpung (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not hitherto had anything to do with this article, but having seen the tag I have checked the entire article against the reference works on my shelves (which I fear are all too amply stocked with books about wine) and I cannot see that it is too informally written or badly referenced. If Kudpung would like to point out which sentences give him or her concern, I shall be happy to check them against Jancis Robinson, Hugh Johnson, and if necessary Robert Parker, et al, and make any necessary emendations. Otherwise I suggest removing the tags in the not too distant future. - Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick  look at  my  user page will  determine my gender -  and also  my  interest in  Rhone wines ;) I was't -  or didn't intend - to criticise the cited sources. What  I  thought  I  was pointing  out was that there are places that  are unsourced and could be construed by  a critical  editor  as being  WP:POV or WP:OR. The claims are almost  certainly  made in  GF and are probably  not  intentionally  left  unsourced, but WP:CITE is not  a policy  that  is clear to  everyone, thus tin  order to  err on  the side of caution  I  tend to  insist  upon  it. Feel  free to  add citations and/or remove the templates. I  won't get  involved in an edit  war  either way. At  the risk  of disfiguring  the article, I  could put  inline cn tags in  the relevant  places if this would help.--Kudpung (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, Côte-Rôtie is in northern Rhône, so the definite source to use would of course be the brick-sized The Wines of the Northern Rhône by John Livingstone-Learmonth, at least where more detail is needed than good ol' all-round Oxford Companion. Tomas e (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: I was planning to take this up at User:Kudpung talk page but saw recent activity here so lets talk here instead. I do not agree with the recent removal of some wikilinks, e.g. cofermentation , tannin, vintage, winemaking, wine bottle and oak (wine). I will revert a few, but wanted to put a note here since I will do a direct revert. Please explain why the wikilinks above was removed or what policy that states they should not be linked, some of the other that was removed I agree that they where a bit to many. But to argue that a wikilink do not expand on the information is wrong, this is wikipedia and it is OK to link to stubs that will  grow. --Stefan talk 00:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The cofermentation  link led to  a dab page. Neither of the linked pages carried any  specific mention  whatsoever about  cofermentation. I  may happen  to  know what  cofermentation  is, but  an average reader will  still  be left  guessing. Thus, unless he is a wine expert, he will  not automatically  know whether it  means the grapes are fermented together in  one vat, or whether their fermentation is simply  started and stopped simulatenously  in  separate vats. Therefore, I consider linking  to  non-existent  material  does not  enhance a reader's experience -  it  certainly  wasted mine just  to  prove a point. I tend to  think  from  a reader's point of view, but I  won't be baited into  an edit war over this, so  you  can  have you  way.--Kudpung (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to start a edit war just build a better encyclopedia, I want to understand how you read the policies when you removed the links you did, none of the examples above fall into any of the categories you stated as examples? even a dab link should not be removed due to any of the below the way i read it? Which of the below states that you should not link if there is no info on the page? I though you linked due to the link word, not the target page. The only one that might be questionable is wine bottle? --Stefan talk 03:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank  you  for copying exactly  what  I  said. The examples I  stated, according  to  my  interpretations of the GL, fall  directly  within  the categories of WP:OVERLINK and how they  affect  this article. This talk page is for discussing improvements to  the article. Please see your user talk  page for suggestions and discussion how the guidelines can be more accurately  interpreted. I have asked for a second,  independent opinion, and I  will  be quite happy  to  abide by  whatever that  might  be. --Kudpung (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how tannin, vintage, oak (wine) and winemaking qualify as "irrelevant" to the article. Do you think most English reading really know all the information and details that are in the oak (wine) article? AgneCheese/Wine 05:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I  fail  to  see how linking  to  a total  dead end of a dab page  helps anyone at  at all. I  also  fail  to  understand  why  the recent  trend in  using  combative tones throughout  the encyclopedia has spread to our discussions on  improving  our wine articles and the experience of our readers. --Kudpung (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The only combative tones are the ones that you are reading into people's words. As a 3rd party, I didn't see anything combative in Stefan's response to you. Pointing out that you are probably mistaken in your interpretation and application of guidelines is not combative. BTW, neither tannin, vintage, oak (wine) nor winemaking are "dead ends of dab pages". They are full fledged articles that are very relevant to the topic of a wine region. So....where is the point of contention? AgneCheese/Wine 16:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudpung, please read e.g. WP:redlink, although not directly related it shows that if e.g. cofermentation did not exists at all, as dab page or otherwise it should still be linked to, since it is a topic that is relevant to Côte-Rôtie_AOC. This to me also states that we should link to dab pages, even though they does not  enhance a reader's experience, remeber this is a WIKI which means that the readers is also supposed to contribute and when you saw that dead link your could have added to the page instead of removing the link. Also read WP:LINK#What generally should not be linked, and especially think about what unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, means. And sorry if I used combative tones, that was never my intent, I just tried to help us all build a better wikipedia. --Stefan talk 00:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asked a couple of days ago to give the issue a look - sorry for the delay, and I hope it's still relevant to do so despite Kudpung's later comments. I'm sorry to see long-standing and valuable contributors to WP:WINE disagree. On substance, I essentially agree with Stefan's version; that is, in a wine-related article, it's relevant to link all viticultural and oenological terms (on first appearance), also in case of redlinks or bad stubs. Thus, I agree with Kudpung's delinking of terms like blonde, but not with the oenological terms. BTW, we obviously need an article cofermentation (wine), since the fermentation (wine) article (linked from cofermentation) doesn't seem to mention this phenomenon. (Surely it was widely used for the softening white grape proportion in red wines from e.g. Rioja and Chianti in times gone by?) The only relinking by Stefan that I find possibly unnecessary is wine bottle. Tomas e (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinking