Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Wines task force/Archive 4

message: Well almost a week into our first challenge to eliminate stubs we have mixed results. We actually increased the number of overall stubs we had from 742 to 774. However, we decreased the overall percentage of stubs down from being 75% of Wine related articles to 74%. Part of this is the growth that comes from discovering new wine related articles that already existed. Stub killing will obviously be an ongoing and constant battle. But we need everyone to chip in to kill off at least one stub per member. Unfortunately, we do have a hefty number of Wine Project members that are mostly inactive so if any of more active members can kill off 2 or 3 more that would be great.
How do you kill off a stub?
*The BEST way is to improve the article, add a section or two with a few references to bring it up to at least Start class
*Some items listed at stub may not be stubs at all and just need to be reassessed.
*Some stubs are about minor wine related items and could be better served by being merged into a bigger article. As a general rule of thumb, if you don't think there is more than a paragraph's worth of info that could be written about the subject-it will better served into a bigger article that covers that scope. Ex: There are several merge candidates to go into wine accessory. Just be sure to redirect the article title to the bigger article and delete the  tag from the talk page.
*Some stubs are advertisements or about non-notable items. These items can be WP:PROD and later deleted. 
Now let's kill some stubs! AgneCheese/Wine 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know that is a really good point. I still want to keep track of the "percentage" of stub articles to the overall number of wine articles but I think in terms of tracking, your idea of following the increase in Start articles is a better way to go. AgneCheese/Wine 08:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Stub Killer Update 

message: This article is a WID nominee and I'm wondering if there is merit to merging the smaller "sparkling style" articles like Spumante, Frizzante, Crémant, Cap Classique, and Sekt into it. A significant advantage would be that it would reduce redundancy and duplication between the main sparkling wine article and the smaller stub articles (which may not grow out of their stub states). I encountered a similar situation when I was working on the Late harvest wine where I felt like I was just repeating some of the same info from the main articles talking about the various styles. Any thoughts? AgneCheese/Wine 07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me. Each article could be merged into its own section in the sparkling wine article, and then you could redirect the articles to that section. ◄scharks► 07:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sparkling wine]] 

message: Does anyone have or can get any pictures for this articles? Charleenmerced  Talk 19:45, 24 March 2007 
*Tempranillo
*Aligoté
:As a side note I've added a photo request parameter to the  template. To request a photo add "needs-photo=yes" to template on the talk page. These articles are then added to :Category:Wine articles needing photos. ◄scharks► 02:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that is uber-cool. :) AgneCheese/Wine 06:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture requests 

message: Although we're trying to kill stubs, the number of articles listed as  is probably going to remain very large.   To try and make the process a little more maintainable I've gone and created 4 new stub types that are a little more specific than the top level "wine" label.  These are:
* - for articles about wineries
* - for biographical articles about people related to wine
* - for all those articles that are about grapes
* - for the articles about AVA's, AOC, etc.
In the next few days I'm going to try to go through the 700+ stub articles and try to sort them into these categories.   If you come across a stub that could be relabeled with one of these new templates it would be great if you could update it. :) Also, for new stub articles please make use of these new templates if possible. --- The Bethling(Talk) 07:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yep, if it doesn't fit one of the 4 sub categories, then wine-stub is still the right one to use. ---The Bethling(Talk) 20:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stub types 

message: *I think a lot of this conversation incorporates a diverging view of the benefits/flaws of the prod function. I can respect that and I can also respect Bduke's desire for some sort of notification system. I think Schark's idea might combine the best of both worlds. If changing the importance to "none" puts it into its own category, maybe we can "tweak" it into allowing a date that corresponds to the date that a prod tag was placed? Then how about linking to this category within the "open task" area that is available for any wine project member to view. That way an editor can still make editorial decisions (like deciding to prod an article) and wine project members can be kept fully informed and updated by simply checking on that category. With that said, I want to say that I value Bduke's contribution to the project greatly and would hate to see him go. I think our disagreements are certainly scalable and I can see potential in Scharks idea to get a lot of wine articles into better shape. AgneCheese/Wine 06:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise solution?

message: I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wine and transcluded it into the Project page. Please let me know what you think about it. I have also added an entry for wine to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat. The template article for creating the deletion sorting page had an infobox to the right near the top for adding deletions that are not AfD or Mfd. It was too narrow and I have never seen it used on any other deletion sorting page. I have therefore added sections at the bottom for other things (prod and speedy deletions, categories, templates and images) to be added. I have added the prods that I know about. Any others? --Bduke 07:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion sorting

message: I have looked into this article, and following my stated wish that major issues be discussed here I am raising some concerns before wading in and editing. This winery certainly has some notability. It seems to have introduced spaetlese wines to Australia. It is not that small. It employs 140 staff and has a revenue of AUS$16 million (US$12.2 million). It exports to the UK and US. However it is owned by McGuigan Wines who have a winery in NSW and Yaldara Estate (as it is actually now called) in South Australia. The combined company claims to be Australia's No 1 public-listed pure wine company. Together there is clearly more notability. I therefore propose to write a new article McGuigan Wines, merge Chateau Yaldara into that article and make the latter a redirect, along with Yaldara Estate. Does this seem a good solution? Is it a general solution? Should we aim for articles on wine companies, if notable enough, rather than their separate wineries, unless of course a particular winery is particularly notable? --Bduke 09:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chateau Yaldara]] 

message: Per this conversation at Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates.
The GA crew are having a bit of a backlog issue at the GA Candidates page and need some help reviewing articles. For those who are unfamiliar with GA, essentially anyone can review an article against the Good Article Criteria and there is a diverse array of topics that need reviewing. It would be a nice way to help out and would also benefit the Wine Project by helping our articles to be reviewed quicker. AgneCheese/Wine 06:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone interested in helping the [[WP:GA|Good Article]] reviewers? 

message: To help get our current Wine Improvement Drive article Pinot Gris up to GA level quality. A big area in need of improvement is the wine regions. We have only scant info on a few regions. Some more pictures would help too. This grape has been a bit trickier but I know with a concentrated push we can do it. AgneCheese/Wine 09:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 more days left 

message: A doozy of a conversation. Other opinions are welcome. AgneCheese/Wine 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a comment, kind of busy so it'll take some time for me to reply again.   I do think the name of the article is a case of regionalism.   Even here in Washington, "wine country" doesn't mean California, I can't imagine that Australians (for example) would think of Napa when hearing  "Wine Country" ---- The Bethling(Talk) 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stated I was going to stay out of the argument, which I believe I started with my post after your linked the article for merge.  I now feel even more insistent that the article as it stands now needs to be either completely changed and remain a simple stub with a broad definition (An encyclopedia is not for definitions however) or should be deleted entirely.  Thanks for dragging me back into the debate Agne27.  By-the-way this also drew me to theCalifornia Wine article which really needs work hopefully this will help or after this term is over I'll get some work done on it.Christopher Tanner, CCC 02:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, I haven't had experience with changing an article in this way with people so strongly opposing this however.  What are the chances of them just arbitrarily changing it back to the way it was beforehand?  I am unfamiliar with such processes on here and would hate to see time spent on an idea such as this for no result.  Thank you for taking the initiative on this page though.  This page  is clearly a POV as you stated and Northern California is not the only Wine Country as I noted with the webpage http://www.winecountry.com which you noted as well on that page. Christopher Tanner, CCC 06:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wine Country]] 

message: I'd like to get some thoughts on splitting the focus of the Wine Improvement Drive. I'd like to narrow our WID candidates to those that are currently START or STUB because with those articles the improvement is more drastic and more needed. In theory, our B class articles should be articles that are pretty darn close to attaining GA status and would probably only need a few days attention versus our 2 week WID period. As a project, I think we should continually strive to bring all of these articles up to GA and maybe we could run a parallel project with each newsletter with a B-class adoption article. Essentially I'd like to propose that every B-class article is free to be adopted and every wine project member is challenged to "adopt" one B-class article which will be noted in the newsletter. Over the course of the two week period, we'll see how far we can go in bringing up a couple of these articles up to GA class. Even if only 2 or 3 wine project members adopt an article, that could still dramatically increase our rate of producing GA articles. Any thoughts? AgneCheese/Wine 06:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WID]] and [[:Category:B-Class Wine articles]] 

message: 'Moving conversation over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine/Template grape article This is a really important discussion and I don't want to see it get lost in the middle of the Project talk page. AgneCheese/Wine 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard structure of a grape article 

message: What does the project think about incorporating a bot(like User:MiszaBot) to handle archiving discussions? It is a bit tedious to do it by hand. AgneCheese/Wine 19:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Werdna bot is out of order at the moment. I will put in a request for Miszabot. AgneCheese/Wine 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, after looking at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo, I fret that I might mess something up. I think I'll ask Schark's pretty please and see if he'll make the request. :) AgneCheese/Wine 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Archiving? 

message: While working on the newsletter (sorry about being late, real life is crazy), I had trouble finding any cohesive listing of wine related categories. Is there something that I'm missing or do we need to be ambitious and create a listing?. AgneCheese/Wine 05:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started an easy reference list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/List of wine related categories. If there is something already existing we can always MfD it. AgneCheese/Wine 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean WP:CFD. --Bduke 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my list would be miscellany since it is not a category itself. AgneCheese/Wine 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, sorry. I thought you were talking about redundant categories. If you want to delete it, as the sole author, you can just tag it for deletion (I forget how) and an admin will come along and delete it. --Bduke 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: LOL!. It took me 4 looks to finally see but there it is. Gawd, I must be getting old. :p Well I started the dedicated page that is linked above. Anyone can feel free to have their way with it.AgneCheese/Wine 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wine Categories 

message: I'd like to get other editors' thoughts on this article. I'm concerned with the advertising aspects of this article and the overall notability for an entire article dedicated to this wine brand. What are your thoughts? AgneCheese/Wine 10:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be merged with Sovetskoye Shampanskoye, a stub which would benefit from the majority of the encyclopedic text at Sparkling 1917. The brand probably warrants no more than the mention it has at Sovetskoye Shampanskoye, but the fact that the brand name article is so full of supporting info from an anon source is suspicious to say the least. Justice woud be served, I think, with a merge mikaul 12:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll throw a merge tag on and we'll see what kind of comments we get in a week or so. A similar anon IP keeps trying to interject information about the Russian sparkling wine into the article on the French Champagne (wine). In addition to reading like a sales pitch and being unsourced, I find that content to be off topic and inappropriate for the Champagne article. AgneCheese/Wine 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I read more about this brand, I realize that this article is nothing more then a sales pitch. It's like creating a page called Domaine Ste. Michelle to advertise for the Sparkling wine created by Chateau Ste. Michelle. The parent company behind Sparkling 1917 might be notable according to WP:CORP with a one line mention of this wine but there is absolutely no reason for an entire advertisement article for this brand. So I listed it for AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparkling 1917. AgneCheese/Wine 00:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sparkling 1917]] 

message: I have moved the AfD debate on the article referred to in the section above to the intended place in the deletion sorting page. This is how everybody else does it. The debate is trancluded into the page. However, that not may be how we want it as, if there are a lot of AfD debates, it would take too much of the Project page. I could change it to just give a link to the debate. What do you think? --Bduke 04:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Once you've read it, it's a real pain to scroll past. mikaultalk 13:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have changed it, but note that if you open up the full deletion sorting page there are transcluded instructions which give the older official way to do it. I have added comments to explain. This page is really not a correct deletion sorting page and perhaps at some point we should rename it. The WikiProject Australia has both sets of pages - the deletion sorting and one like ours is now, but it is a pain updating both. --Bduke 22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion sorting 

message: As an FYI, there have been several subtopics proposed to being merged in the main winemaking article. I'm going to try to format a discussion section there so that each item can be fairly evaluated. This would be a substantial change to this article as well as the subtopic articles so a diversity of opinions is ardently needed. AgneCheese/Wine 02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Winemaking]] Merge Discussions 

message: For those of us that can read Spanish, this is a great source of info.  If anyone finds any article there that they think it's good for a Wikipedia article, ill be happy to translate it.--Charleenmerced  Talk 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good sources of info 

message: *Does anyone have pictures from this winery in Washingtonville, NY?-Christopher Tanner, CCC 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add one that I know of that shows the label. A wine pic will be more difficult (at least for me) since it is a hard wine to get out side of New England/Mid-Atlantic region. Any project members in those areas should have better luck. AgneCheese/Wine 11:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Brotherhood Winery]] 

message: An editor has requested that Champagne (wine region) be de-listed because the info there is more appropriate in the Champagne (province) article and has suggested the page be renamed Wine making in Champagne. AgneCheese/Wine 00:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both articles are too large to consider merging. AgneCheese/Wine 02:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe at the moment - but like I say,  a lot of the stuff in there is duplicated or redundant. FlagSteward 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Champagne (wine region)]] on [[WP:GA/R]] 

message: Over on Talk:Champagne_production, I've suggested renaming it Sparkling wine production, given that it's the same process used around the world, and it would allow incorporation of the otherwise-stubby Charmat process and some comparison of the different methods within the same article. 
I guess an alternative would be to keep Champagne production and rename Charmat process into Sparkling wine production, and turn the CP article into more of a compare and contrast article, but I think I marginally prefer just one article as a central reference for all things fizzy.
If anyone has any better ideas for Charmat process, let's hear them.
FlagSteward 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Champagne production]] name 

message: Looking at that ever-lengthening Stub list, three new stub types suggest themselves :
:
: or  is perhaps clearer
: for all those odd articles about techniques and tools
: 
And I think it would be useful to widen the scope of  to , to catch a few extra companies like Enologix and hybrid companies like Nicolas.FlagSteward 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And a  might be a good idea too? FlagSteward 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK - tastings probably doesn't get over the 30 stub count, the others would I guess (I've not counted production methods, but there seems to be a lot).  Certainly company-Bordeaux would, and that might help clear some wood from the trees for those not interested in Bordeaux. Re: wine-style/wine-brand, I guess what we really want is  :-)) An alternative to wine-style would be to use  for styles and brands alone, and then dump everything else into a dustbin : category.  FlagSteward 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stub types 

message: There seems a bit of inconsistency with article names, you get eg Chablis wine but Vouvray (wine).  The latter 'feels' more right to me, but I figure it's the sort of thing that it would make sense to be consistent on.
FlagSteward 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should have some time of consistency. I am also a bit partial to the (wine) disambiguation because of the ease of pipe linking. I often found myself wanting to link to the Bordeaux wine page as just "Bordeaux" and then having to take the extra step of pipe link Bordeaux. Thankfully I found that the presence of the Bordeaux (wine) redirect allowed me to easily type  to get Bordeaux. Hence, my partiality to that style. However, I suppose if we adopted a universal convention in the other manner (XXXX wine) we could just as easily set up redirects in the (wine) fashion. AgneCheese/Wine 10:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've changed Chablis (wine) - worth flagging up any others, as I think the (wine) format is the way to go FlagSteward 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article names (wine) 

message: *What is the best way to deal with objections to merges? I think we need to consider this question in two contexts. 1.) How to deal with an objection after an editor boldly does a merge. 2.) A merge discussion takes place prior to the merge an another editor has expressed an objection. In the case of one, an editor can just revert the redirect merge on the article as an easy solution. See the edit history of Sovetskoye Shampanskoye. If any editor still wants to go forward with a merge, then a more formal discussion could be brought up with maybe an WP:RFC to solicit more opinions. For me, personally, when I'm being bold I'll abide by the spirit of WP:BRD. If another editor reverts me, I put good faith in their judgment and give them time to work on the article. If after sufficient time has passed and things have not improved overall, I'll open up a formal discussion.AgneCheese/Wine 02:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think that if there's going to be any rule about a number of objections stopping a merge, I think that it's vital that there be a requirement that they justify their rational.   Simply saying "Oppose" shouldn't be enough.  ---- The Bethling(Talk) 03:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That is reasonable. AgneCheese/Wine 10:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections to merges

message: *On the case of a formal discussion with objection, I think the Project needs to decide how we are going to gauge "Consensus". Is it going to be a simple majority of views, a super majority? Personally, I think any "shared" objection by more then one editor should be enough to leave a discussion at "no consensus". The wine project is currently at a point of low activity and the shared opinion of two different wine editors would be a sizable consideration.AgneCheese/Wine 02:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus on Merge discussions

message: *I noticed that the White Zinfandel article was changed to a Low importance and I feel that it was an inappropriate change.  Just to elaborate on my reasoning, based on sales volume the wine has given profits to wineries that have been able to produce other great "connoisseur" wines.  It is still the highest volume sold wine in America and that states much for its importance to the industry.  Many may not enjoy it's flavor, but that doesn't make it unimportant, thats just POV.  In addition White Zinfandel has been produced in California since the grape was introduced in the 19th century, commercially it is a new product but that doesn't make it a new wine or any less important.  I just wanted to get a consensus before I changed the article back to what I feel should be High importance.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I personally think it is a dreadful wine, it is none the less a very popular one in the US and the history of the style plays a large role California Zinfandel production. I can see an argument for "high importance" but at the very least it should be mid. AgneCheese/Wine 10:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've switched it to Mid, as the Zinfandel grape is of much more importance than a "style" of wine made from the grape.  Thanks for the input and for the others who did so on the article. --Christopher Tanner, CCC 13:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW I'd say it fails the 'international relevance' test for a High importance, and as you say it definitely deserves to be at least one step below Zinfandel itself.FlagSteward 14:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[White Zinfandel]] 

message: This bot searches works with the Wikipedia:New articles by topic page to categorize New pages listings. Currently there is no wine category. Would there be any value in setting one up? I really can't estimate how many new wine pages crop up on a given day but at the very least I can see a benefit in ensuring that it is tagged and assess by the project. Any other thoughts? AgneCheese/Wine 10:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see why not  FlagSteward 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:AlexNewArtBot]] 

message: As part of my attempts to try and sort out some of the High priority Stubs, I've proposed the merger of Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, Romanée Conti and La Tache - I don't think there's enough to be said about the two vineyards that doesn't also belong in the winery article. I've left open the subject of the name - my preference would be Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, but I wonder if the average Wikipedian might not expect to see Romanée Conti. See Talk:Domaine_de_la_Romanée-Conti
FlagSteward 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, we seem to be having some objections.  I've upgraded the DRC article a bit to give a better idea of the direction it could be going in, would anyone else care to comment on the Romanée Conti and La Tache articles as merger candidates with Domaine de la Romanée-Conti. For me it's a no-brainer, so I'm surprised at the opposition. FlagSteward 01:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domaine de la Romanée-Conti merge 

message: The Miszabot thing seems to work pretty well, might I suggest that the archive frequency is extended to 8-9 days, to allow people who only say come here at weekends to see what's happened during the week?
FlagSteward 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I would personally like to see it moved back up to 7 days. The project does get a flurry of activity from time to time but the talk page doesn't get that overwhelming with an extra 2 days. AgneCheese/Wine 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Thanks to the Bethling for nominating Chaptalization for a DYK which is now on the Main Page. The increase traffic on a wine related article is always a plus for the project. I know when Charles Heidsieck was on the front page, a flurry of edits happened which greatly improved the article and helped to eventually get it to GA. Hopefully the same will happen to Chaptalization. I encourage all wine project members to be mindful of DYK's especially when we create a new article or substantially improve a stub. If you are shy about nominating yourself, put a mention on this project page and another a wine project member will take a look and see if there is a nice "hook" for nominating. AgneCheese/Wine 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wine on the Front Page! 

message: How does the To Do list work?  It feels like it could do with some updating - for instance, Expand links to the stub list, but some of the articles there had got up to B status. I didn't want to tread on any toes by removing them completely, but I thought it more appropriate to move eg Rioja to the 'To GA' list.  Does Expand include Stubs and Starts, or just Stubs? Is there scope for an 'Improve' list of Starts and leave Expand to cover only Stubs?
Should the lists of Expand/to GA/to FA only feature Top Priority articles at this stage?
I think we should certainly add "Discussion of the grape article template" as an urgent matter, as once we've got that nailed that will allow us to really go stub hunting on the grape varieties - there doesn't seem much point in starting that until we've got a template that everyone's happy with.  I guess going 'live' with Template:Infobox_grape_variety would also be part of that process. FlagSteward 13:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do list 

message: *Pinot blanc - I think I have added enough to this article to change it to Start. Anyone else agree? Needs a copyedit though. Charleenmerced  Talk 20:48, 23 March 2007
*Cabernet franc - also added info and fixed it a bit, needs a copy edit.
Agree that these two could be changed to Start level. Camw 00:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'll go ahead and nominate it. And Mick, that picture with the wine glass to show the color is simply GORGEOUS! AgneCheese/Wine 00:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :o) mikaultalk 13:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find relevant information by all means add it. However the worst case scenario is that it fails GA with some good notes on what we can do to improve it. Ordinarily Peer Review would be ideal but considering the dreadful response that I had with Languedoc wine, I think PR is pretty much useless now. AgneCheese/Wine 01:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the History section was a bit "wooly", rather than "thin" - could do with shearing! (especially toward the end) mikaultalk 13:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-assess of ex-stubs 

message: I've noticed that some grape varieties have a capitalised second name and then others do not. For example Sauvignon blanc and Pinot blanc versus Chenin Blanc and Fumé Blanc. What is the convention that we should be using? It would be good to get consistency on this. ◄scharks► 03:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm encountering the same issue with sources for Pinot gris. I have some sources that have it listed as Pinot Gris, some as Pinot gris and admittedly I'm not sure which is correct. AgneCheese/Wine 07:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there are rules for this but I am not sure what they are. This was addressed in another article, not sure which...maybe in Cabernet Sauvignon? But, it was definately discussed and an answer was given. I wish I remembered...Charleenmerced  Talk 07:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry I missed this. It's (somewhat) my pet crusade. There was actually a post here last month  explaining it. What is less clear (as I noted in the that post, is whether this same capitalisation applies to non-English (e.g., Pinot Grigio v. Pinot grigio). Having said that the lower case version is technically correct, I've come across editors who refuse to have "Sauvignon blanc" in their publications. --Limegreen 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Limegreen, sorry I missed that previous discussion. Hopefully we can work to tidy this up. I'm also thinking of setting up a naming convention for grape varieties so these discussions are formalised. ◄scharks► 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been stumbling across some good resources on grape clones and cultivars, but to be honest, capitalisation doesn't seem to be a strong point. One thing I did note on my travels is that it appears that it is Cabernet franc, so it isn't only colour descriptors. There is an interesting discussion here on the semantics, but it stops short of capitalising. Most interestingly/relevantly to this discussion is that individual clones of Pinot (e.g., Davis vs Dijon) are likely more different genetically than the colour based categories (e.g., gris vs noir). --Limegreen 02:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just trying to fix up Pinot gris and in it we now have Pinot Gris, Pinot gris and pinot gris, should I change it all to Pinot gris? Is that consensus or not? If we are trying for GA I would never accept it as GA unless we at least had the same name all through the same page. Stefan 13:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Both Jancis Robinson in The Oxford companion to Wine and Oz Clark in Grapes and Wines call it Pinot Gris. Stefan 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would go with eg Pinot noir in general, with double capitals where the second word is a name.  Double capitalisation is a reasonable second bet, which avoids the need to think too hard about the origins.  Double lower case just seems wrong. FlagSteward 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is proper to capitalize both names, they are a title for a grape.  Even the second word which is often a descriptor is still a proper name.  Just to verify I checked with my grad professor from Readings in Wine History MET630 which he grades in that manner.  In addition I checked every wine reference I have and all of the entries are fully capitalized. Christopher Tanner, CCC 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think so, I think it's fairly clear-cut: the "lower-case second name" thing comes from the scientific binomial nomenclature naming convention in taxonomy etc (eg Vitis silvestris) in which only the first word of the binary name is capitalised to emphasise genus over descriptor. It's a 20th century invention, hence the confusion, perhaps. Certainly seems eminently sensible to stick to the normal Proper Noun capitalisation common to all other English (and French and German) nomenclature, as Sauvingnon isn't a genus, even if Blanc *is* as descriptor. mikaultalk 19:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it's not a binomial thing, people aren't following the example of the 18th century Linnaeus, it's more to do with capitalising proper names and not capitalising adjectives. In English one wouldn't normally capitalise white Pinot, but you would capitalise Frontignan Muscat.  That's the argument for having some in the Big little format, but I am tempted to agree that prior art and ease of consistency might argue for capitalising everything. FlagSteward 00:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's more or less what I was getting at; I think our friend Carl used caps for his descriptors (adjectives), the reasoning being that what once might have been a descriptive phrase has become a proper name. So Sauvignon (blanc) becomes Sauvignon Blanc. I'm sure there are other examples.. Great Britain? mebbe not.. mikaultalk 17:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions for grape varieties 

message: I've found some more decent Tempranillo pics - a diseased cluster, some semi-mature clusters and a white-background ripe cluster showing good deep blue-blacks - all from this wiki-friendly source. They'll be on the category:wine-related images page and if there's anything else on the guy's website you like, please copy & paste the permission details from the Description section of one of the Tempranillo ones displaying his URL. He has a good, in-depth, technical library of pics, almost all from northern Spain (Rioja, Ribera del Duero, Navarra etc) but also a decent selection of more generic wine production shots on a searchable database. The links from his site are v good too. mikaultalk 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't understand the commons things either so I upload my photos directly to en-wiki. Some of them eventually get trans-wiki over but the article link normally stays in tact needing nothing further for me to do. As for hints and tips, by all means....please. :) Both the mrs and I have been trying our best to get good quality wine pics but with very marginal success. With my shop I have plenty of means and opportunity to take a variety of wine pics. I'm just lacking the skill. AgneCheese/Wine 11:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More photos

message: Howdy all! Unfortunately, I haven't gotten a response for a new Wiki-Winos for the next newsletter addition so I am sending out an opening invitation for anyone who would like to participate. Take a look at the questions found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter/Wiki-Winos and post your reply at User talk:Agne27/Wiki-Winos. There you can also take a look at how the interview with previous Wiki-Winos Charleen, Chris, Steve, and Mroconnell went. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks! AgneCheese/Wine 19:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Wiki-Winos Invite 

message: Um... I'm requesting a lil' article on a German wine called Schwalbenwinkel. It's mentioned in the film Judgement at Nuremburg, as the local wine of that region, and to my amazement I finally found something that is not in Wiki yet, even on the German Wines page.71.125.152.188 06:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schwalbenwinkel 

message: I've just created this page following a paper trail which started when I was helping research the white Tempranillo grape. It's interesting on several levels, not least the GM debate. I realise the info about the origins of white grapevines already has a mention on the Vitis vinifera page but it seemed like a good opportunity to put some flesh on the bones of the story. I'm thinking it would make a good WP:DYK but I'm not sure whether you can nominate a section of an article..? I'd appreciate any comments, anyway. mikaultalk 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff, like it :-) FlagSteward 00:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very neat article. Definitely DYK potential. Just have to find a good hook to nominate. Bethling is pretty good at finding one. AgneCheese/Wine 21:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[International Grape Genome Program]] 

message: While browsing the web I came across this from the Wine for Newbies podcast. Much to my surprise, I found that the host makes frequent use of Wikipedia as a wine resource for his podcast. With Wikipedia's free license, he compiled several of our wine articles in a Wine Appreciation book that he published. This sort of hits home about the work and benefit of what we do here. I think this also heightens our goal of creating quality wine articles that people can reference and use. So kudos to every one in the project. :) AgneCheese/Wine 09:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pssst.....they're watching us 

message: I've put in a formal request for American wine to be renamed USA wine on the grounds that the rest of the continent have reasonable grounds to complain of WP:BIAS - and USA wine is more accurate. Discussion is over on Talk:American wine
:USA wine is rather cretinous. How about North American wine? Canada can be stuck in there too :) VanTucky 06:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[American wine]] rename 

message: I have been very busy recently so not much time, now I had some and made the recent changes list that was discussed earlier, see Recent changes list, please edit the order, not sure what you want first. Still would be good if we could include sub cats ...Stefan 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: This one seems to have been hanging around a few weeks but with no response.  Suggestion is to merge in Vin de Paille, Recioto,Passito and Amarone to a) remove a load of stubs and b)make Straw wine a more coherent, better, article that would probably deserve promotion to High priority. FlagSteward 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be a consensus on the first three, I still think that PAssitoRecioto and Amarone belong together... FlagSteward 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a big revamp on Straw wine which has incorporated the current four articles but I've not done anything about a formal merger yet. I must admit, it's one of the most satisfying articles I've done, bringing together a whole load of disparate threads into something that really starts to make sense when viewed as a whole - I really fancy getting my hands on some Passito di Pantelleria now :-)) Perhaps the pro-Amarone folks could take another look to see how Amarone fits in? The other 'biggy' is that I think the article needs a rename given that a lot of similar wines don't use straw - Raisin wine seems to be one sensible option.
FlagSteward 14:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's wrong to keep the "popular" varietals with their own pages and shunt the lesser-known ones to the sidelines in generalized articles. Keep all of the individual straw wine articles or none. Personally, I think the solution is to keep a general article about the straw wine process, but also keep pages for each grape. Stubs have a purpose, and its not just to be merged. VanTucky 06:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Straw wine]] merger 

message: If this list could ever be exhaustive and complete it would probably be larger then some of our foreign language wiki's. :p Any thoughts on what we should do about it? AgneCheese/Wine 10:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also having trouble seieng how this would work, or more to the point who would DO the work. There are over 160,000 viticultors in Spain alone... mikaultalk 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of vineyards and wineries]] 

message: (Section break) I think consensus is that this article will be impossible to maintain. The next question is what do we want to do with it? Do we want to AfD it. Merge its content somewhere else? Turn it into a category, etc? Any ideas? AgneCheese/Wine 19:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What to do?

message: I know that I am not the only wine project editor who has removed spam links from the Wine Library TV sites on our grape and wine region articles so I was shocked to find articles about these subjects. The thing that concerns me most is that the majority of these links go from the "free lesson" to the wine store with plugs on which wines you should buy from them. The object seems more commercial and sales oriented then educational and is a bit troubling. I can possibly see a case for the Gary Vaynerchuk article since (albeit brief) mention in the Wall Street Journal does show some notability but the Wine Library TV article is.....well, a bit much. Case in point Wine_Library_TV#Vayner-isms. Any other thoughts? AgneCheese/Wine 16:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wine Library TV]] and [[Gary Vaynerchuk]] 

message: For our Bordeaux WID articles to get up to GA! Right now the current states are....
*Bordeaux wine- main WID article.
-Sections to expand Lead intro, Climate and geography, Wine style (namely this is a section to comment on the Bordeaux wines other then red wines, like the sparkling and deserts).
-Sections to reduce and summarize Wine regions & classification and History. We need to look at the splinter articles and mine the text from those areas into no more then two paragraphs worth of info that serves as a good summary of what is in the splinter article. 
-Section to clean up and reference - Problems and Prospect. Needs a little POV work to. Ideally I like to see more comment on the globalization of wine in this area.
*Bordeaux wine regions - Getting there. Major work needed on the Right banks and just general tweaking and fleshing out of the information.
*History of Bordeaux wine - Major work still needed. It still needs to be divided into sections and fashioned into an article. Pictures would also be a plus
*Bordeaux Wine Official Classification of 1855- Largely untouched during the WID period so far. The most obvious need is to trim the lead and carve out at history section from it that could then be expanded. The Criticism area needs POV and referencing work.
This was an ambitious project and I'm grateful to the editors who have helped so far but we need more. Giving the diversity of the articles there should be an area for everyone that they can pitch in. Every little bit help from copy editing to pictures to format to adding content. Together we can do this and help make Wikipedia a world class resource on another wine related subject. AgneCheese/Wine 17:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less then 1 more week 

message: Hey all, I'm starting finals soon....so ta ta till then!--Charleenmerced  Talk 02:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, best wishes and here's hoping you'll have a nice wine to celebrate acing those finals. ;) AgneCheese/Wine 10:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A little late, but good luck on your finals!  I'm in the middle of writing terms papers.  Four ten pagers and a twenty page, one is on wine though, debunking the "spiritual" aspects of terroir, very exciting.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 08:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiatus