Talk:Vitis vinifera

message: * Standardised capitalisation of botanic name. Should this article not be called Grape vine? - Imc 23:11, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
* Re name - Grape vine seems to link to an article about the genus, and this is just a particular grape vine, so no. Morwen 23:16, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
* Thanks for the vote of confidence. Dbroadwell 05:47, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Do you have picture? ilya
:I have a couple, but am waiting for permission to come in. Dbroadwell 16:31, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: You should take your own advice. There is no archaeological culture called "Pelasgian-Thracian". Pelasgian was a Homeric name for what were possibly the natives of the Hellenic area, and the Thraikes were "barbarians" living to the north of Makedonia. You clearly have an ulterior, biased motive here. Source: my career is in archaeology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.56.129 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review Comments 

message: I removed the picture as it showed V. labrusca, not V. vinifera, as do all the pictures on the page grape. We need some more variety in our pictures. Rmhermen 01:47, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
I once again removed a picture. It showed 'Campbell Early', which is primarily a Vitis labrusca-derived hybrid. I'll see if I can track down a legitimate vinifera picture at some point. I also removed the word 'fickle', as it seemed to be used in appropriately. 'Fickle' suggests something which is highly changeable, which the demand for seedless grapes has not been: they have been overwhelmingly preferred for over a century in most countries, and there is a steady trend globally towards seedless cultivars.Elakazal 17:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I translated this section from the Italian wiki. I think maybe it need a cleanup and wikified and all that. Any takers? --BodegasAmbite (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More than cleanup and wikifying, it desperately needs references. The Italian version didn't cite any sources? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanded History section

message: *The appearance of Vitis vinifera has been dated to between 130 and 200 million years ago, with the human relationship to the plant dating from the Neolithic period.
This has got to be totally incorrect- perhaps by an order of magnitude- since the first known flowering plant fossil (Archaefructus) dates to only 125 mya, and the divergence of the existing section of the Vitaceae is estimated in the 92 to 78 mya range according to this web page: . Even the beginning of the Atlantic Ocean dates to 130 mya at the earliest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck Entz (talk • contribs) 02:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History: The dates have to be wrong 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vitis vinifera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928003507/http://ww2.bgbm.org/_EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameId=34500&PTRefFk=500000 to http://ww2.bgbm.org/_EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameId=34500&PTRefFk=500000
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified