Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived.

	Wine Portal WikiProject Wine is part of WikiProject Wine, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of wines, grapes, wine producers and wine growing regions. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page where you can join the project and find other ways of helping.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Wine open tasks Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Wine: Article request: Wine tasting descriptors, List of local wine enthusiast organizations in the USA, red links on List of champagne producers, red links on Spanish wine regions Expand: Aligoté, Appellation d'origine contrôlée, American wine, Cabernet franc, Chilean wine, Chenin blanc, Gewürztraminer, Malbec, New World wine, Penfolds, Pinot blanc, Soave (wine), South African wine, Trebbiano, Vouvray (wine), Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide Cleanup: Table wine, Wine competition, Wine tasting Articles to FA: Riesling Articles to GA: Wine, Australian wine,Burgundy wine, Champagne (wine), Grenache, Pinot Noir, Rioja (wine),Sparkling wine,Tempranillo Peer review:Tempranillo Copyedit: Aligoté, Cabernet franc, Chenin blanc, Malbec, Pinot blanc, Rioja (wine), Tempranillo Photo request: Penfolds Grange, Beaujolais, Aligoté, Malbec Collaboration: Operation stub-killer, Nominations for top level importance Wine Improvement Drive: Sauvignon blanc Infobox: Template:Infobox grape variety, Template:Infobox Winery Other: Comment on the grape article template and on the grape infobox. view • edit • discuss • history • watch

The current Wine Improvement Drive subject is Sauvignon blanc. Feel free to contribute to this article to help bring it up to GA status!

Archives Archive 1 (Aug 2006 - Sep 2006) Archive 2 (Oct 2006 - Jan 2007) Archive 3 (Feb 2007 - Mar 2007) Archive 4 (Apr 2007 -

Contents 1 Re-assess of ex-stubs 2 Naming conventions for grape varieties 3 Champagne (wine region) on WP:GA/R 4 Deletion sorting 5 Winemaking Merge Discussions 6 Domaine de la Romanée-Conti merge 7 Champagne production name 8 New stub types 9 Article names (wine) 10 To Do list 11 Tempranillo picture 11.1 More photos 12 Straw wine merger 13 Good sources of info 14 Views on Merging 14.1 Purpose of merging 14.2 Objections to merges 14.3 Consensus on Merge discussions 14.4 Article length & focus 15 White Zinfandel 16 Brotherhood Winery 17 User:AlexNewArtBot

[edit] Re-assess of ex-stubs

• 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)

Definitely start level. Nice work BTW. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Tempranillo - ok, I just finished making Tempranillo a Start article. It needs a copyedit. Anyone? Charleenmerced ^Talk 18:02, 24 March 2007
  • I think we should offer Tempranillo up for GA, it's way above Start now. mikaul^talk 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll go ahead and nominate it. And Mick, that picture with the wine glass to show the color is simply GORGEOUS! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :o) mikaul^talk 13:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Yes, it's above Start, but is it at GA level? I think it needs more improvement, especially in the History section. There is just not that much History around.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 00:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the History section was a bit "wooly", rather than "thin" - could do with shearing! (especially toward the end) mikaul^talk 13:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Aligoté - I have been trying to get more info on this grape all day to make it a Start article and can't find anything else. Anyone care to help out? I have also re-assessed this article to High imp since it is the 4th most planted grape in the world. Charleenmerced ^Talk 20:35, 24 March 2007
• Malbec - changed to start but might be pushing it. Needs a copy edit. Charleenmerced ^Talk 03:51, 25 March 2007
• Chenin blanc - may or may not be a Start. Needs assessment and a copyedit. Charleenmerced ^Talk 04:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced
• Sémillon - ok, I added some more info and fixed it a little. I tagged it as Start. I think it needs a serious copyedit and some more work. Does anyone know whether it IS true that Chile has the most Semilón planted???? --Charleenmerced ^Talk 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced
  • Just finished a thorough copyedit of this, including a rephrasing to play down the "Chilean world leader" factor. I searched everywhere and couldn't find another supporting ref :o/ --mikaul^talk 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• I should probably add that I've added a fair bit to noble rot and raised it to Start. I think the merge proposal on this one is a bad idea, incidentally. --mikaul^talk 18:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• New York State wine - I've reworked this article and added much more information to the article. I'm not quite sure on the scale of articles where the quality of it would lay now to have it changed. Christopher Tanner, CCC 05:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopher

[edit] Naming conventions for grape varieties

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)

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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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)Charleenmerced

I just found a discussion at Category talk:Grape varieties which seems to answer the question. This suggests that all varieties with descriptors in their name should be renamed to remove capitalisation. This would include -Blanc, -Noir, -Gris, -Rosso, -Rose, -White, which all describe colours, but not for example -Sauvignon. It would be handy to have this formalised for future reference as I'm sure it will come up again. ◄scharks► 08:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this. It's (somewhat) my pet crusade. There was actually a post here last month [1] 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)

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)

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[2] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)tanner-christopher

Again, I've seen wine references use both. I echo Schark's desire to see something formalized. Would it be worthwhile to have a poll to try and gauge wine project member's views?Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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. mikaul^talk 19:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Champagne (wine region) on WP:GA/R

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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I know it might seem a bit perverse to 'destroy' a GA article, but my preference would be to merge it with Champagne (wine) - about a third of that article belongs in the province article or at least doesn't really belong in a wine article, about a quarter of it duplicates stuff in Champagne (wine) about grapes etc, and the rest of it is historical development, soil etc which would normally go in a (wine) article.

FlagSteward 12:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Both articles are too large to consider merging. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion sorting

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)

Good idea. Once you've read it, it's a real pain to scroll past. mikaul^talk 13:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Winemaking Merge Discussions

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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Domaine de la Romanée-Conti merge

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)

[edit] Champagne production name

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)

[edit] New stub types

Looking at that ever-lengthening Stub list, three new stub types suggest themselves :

Template:Stub-wine-style

Template:Stub-wine-tastings or Template:Stub-wine-competition is perhaps clearer

Template:Stub-wine-production for all those odd articles about techniques and tools

And I think it would be useful to widen the scope of Template:Stub-winery to Template:Stub-wine-company, to catch a few extra companies like Enologix and hybrid companies like Nicolas.FlagSteward 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Whilst we're about it, would it be sensible to set up a Template:Stub-wine-company-Bordeaux before the Bordeaux guys get too carried away?

And a Template:Stub-wine-brand might be a good idea too? FlagSteward 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Out of all of these, I think Template:Stub-wine-style is the one most needed and could serve as a catch all for "stub-wine-brand" as well. I could possibly see a need for Template:Stub-wine-prod (provided, we haven't merged the smaller stubs by then). I know as a general rule of thumb, the stub projects likes to a stub category populated with at least 30+ articles on a consistent basis in order to be deemed needed.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article names (wine)

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)

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 wine|Bordeaux]]. Thankfully I found that the presence of the Bordeaux (wine) redirect allowed me to easily type [[Bordeaux (wine)|]] 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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Do list

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.

If anyone does feel like going stub hunting over Easter, these are the current High Priority stubs that aren't grapes :

Regions/styles (11)

Amarone, Chablis wine, Côte de Nuits, Côtes du Rhône AOC, Egri Bikavér, Hermitage AOC, New World wine, New York State wine, Rheinhessen, Sancerre (wine), South African wine, Vouvray (wine)

"the rest" (12)

Ampelography, Appellation (wine), Chaptalization, Charmat process, Château Cheval Blanc, Cult wines, Dessert wine, (Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, La Tâche, Romanée Conti - I propose a merger), Globalization of wine, Qualitätswein mit Prädikat, Riddling, Süssreserve, Tignanello

FlagSteward 13:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I think Tignanello is best handled as a rename to Antinori or Marchesi Antinori, Antinori are too important to be without an article. I've suggested several mergers for the above stubs, and if Cheval Blanc is a High priority then so should Château Ausone. I'm not sure that globalisation of wine is a tangible enough thing to be able to write a sensible article on, but someone's welcome to try. ;-/ FlagSteward 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the "To-do" list, don't fret about treading on anyone toes. Feel free to boldly update it whenever you feel like it.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've just had a thought - how about merging Globalization of wine and New World wine? I know they're superficially different but in practice they look quite similar (and both have serious US-centric POV issues, as though both subjects began with Paris 76 with no reference to Constancia or Grange to name but two. FlagSteward 13:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My inclination would be to oppose this one because a lot of the "threat" of the Globalization of wine has nothing to do with the new world at all. From the wine lake to Négociants to Michel Rolland to Fat Bastard to Vin de pays, there is really more going on in the Old World that is related to the globalization of wine then the New world. In fact, one of my favorite movies on the subject Mondovino, spends the clear majority of its time in the old world commenting on the influences within the old world that are pushing the globalization. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tempranillo picture

I have read up on Tempranillo quite a bit these past few days and discovered that a mutaiton caused a white variety recently. I have put all of this info on the Tempranillo article. I found a picture but it is copyrighted. I put it up anyways for the time being because I think it is gonna be IMPOSSIBLE to find another. I found it here [3]. Can anyone help me obtain another picture of white tempranillo that won't have licensing problems?--Charleenmerced ^Talk 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

Aagh - Portugese! I'd say it was worth asking them for a release, if I could. Are you sure these aren't just an immature cluster? I'm checking some other sources, found that [4] I was on about (pic there too, but tampoco sure it's actually Tempranillo.. vaya peroiodistas..) which says the white version has actually been approved by the consejo for the DO now. mikaul^talk 14:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Press release from DO La Rioja this year - still no pics :/ mikaul^talk 14:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I read the protuguese article I posted and could pretyy much understand a vast majority of it and yes, I am pretty sure those are white tempranillo grapes. I wanted to ask them for permission, but dont really know who to ask. BTW, that link you posted does not work.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

Hm. See if this works: [5]

Try sending an email to the address linked at the top of the page that the photo is on, should find its way to the right person. mikaul^talk 17:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I sent the e-mail. Gotta say, I am a lot happier with the Tempranillo article, it is going nicely. I am still trying to look ofr hisotry, I read somewhere that the wine may not have originated in Spain, or at least not in the Rioja region.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced
  • Fingers crossed for the pic. Talking to folk round here (Penedès) they've grown Tempranillo longer than anywhere else in Spain, but find a citeable source..? According to our friend sr. Hernández, the Rioja didn't start producing anything until the first century AD, a good 6-700 years later than Penedès. Who knows what the Phoenicians got up to further south, even earlier, with indigenous wild grapes? The grape has so many names, and there are so many undocumented claims to the 'original', I'm close to convinced that we'll never be able to say for sure. I'd be very surprised if it first appeared outside of Spain, though. mikaul^talk 22:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More photos

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. mikaul^talk 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about offering some hints and tips to boost up WikiWino editors' photo-taking confidence and generate more original image input. I'm thinking along the lines of wine & bottle shots, pics showing wine colour, etc, which are technically quite tricky and off-putting, but I'd be open to suggestions/questions. Opinions? mikaul^talk 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

One last thing - can anyone answer my question about commons pics not linking to the wp:category:wine-related articles? mikaul^talk 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll be checking out this page. The pics you added are great! I've tried to take pics but they dont come out that well. We should do a "Take a wine-related picture" drive. I guess the common things it's because it's kinda difference from wiki, different account and all and different links, maybe???--Charleenmerced ^Talk 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw wine merger

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)

[edit] Good sources of info

For those of us that can read Spanish, this is a great source of info. [6] 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)Charleenmerced

[edit] Views on Merging

Operation Stub killer is really kicking into gear and more merge discussions are being started up. At this time I do think there would be some benefit in discussing the differing views and philosophy on merging (and stubs in general). It is obvious that there will be disagreements but I do think there should be some cohesion among the wine project in the basic outlook of merging, and how we will handle disagreements. I encourage every to take part in the conversation and share their thoughts. I also encourage wine project members to delay being bold in merging content that another editor has voiced a disagreement on until we have come to some sort of consensus on how to handle those situations. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of merging

• I love killing off stubs as much as the next person but I think the content in first section of WP:MERGE sums up my general outlook on merging quite well.
  

1. There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject.
2. There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
3. If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
4. If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.

For items where there is a distinct overlap (like Wine making and Wine production) it pretty much an easy call. However for other items that are currently stubs, the number 1 consideration is whether or not this article has the potential to develop into a worthwhile encyclopedic article. I believe that a benefit of leaving a stub as a stub is that it does encourage an editor to want to develop the article beyond it stub status-more so I believe then if the info was bury within the girth of a "Mega article". Some things will never grow beyond a few lines of text and those are my ideal merge candidates. An item like Chaptalization, with the controversy and history, was just an encyclopedia article temporarily trapped in a "stubs body". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with this sentiment. If an article can be expanded well beyond a stub (Chaptalization is a great example), then it should probably not be merged. Merging, makes it less likely that a significant amount of important information will be added about the subject, since the editor will need to take the time and effort to split the information out. Otherwise they could feel that they're adding information that's not directly related to the subject of the article. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 03:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I guess that chaptalisation is an example where the 'potential' is a matter of debate - and you won't know until you debate it :-)) So for instance several people didn't think that chpatalization didn't have enough scope for expansion, some people did.
• For the articles that get proposed to be merged into sections of a longer article, then if anybody says that there's scope to be expanded, I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt and given time (several months?) to demonstrate that scope by destubbing. If noone's bothered to destub the article within x months, then the pro-merger camp get their way. Put up or shut up in other words :-)
• And just for the benefit of the stub hunters, I propose that if a stub is proposed as a section in a bigger article, then its Importance is downgraded to at least one level below the bigger article. So for instance, whilst we're debating whether riddling should go into the High importance Champagne production article or destubbed as a standalone article, it gets assigned Mid importance (down from High). If there's a significant argument that it is merely a subsection of a bigger article, it seems likely that it is less Important than that 'host' article. And it scratches the itch of losing another High stub :-))))

FlagSteward 15:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm not too concern with the importance level of articles. Since we started doing the assessments, it's become readily apparent that different wine project members view articles with varying consideration of importance. As a whole, I don't think we need to get too caught up in it. If a topic is of interest to a wine project member and they are compelled to make a better article then regardless of the topic it is certainly of High Importance to them. And that is fine. In regards to your second comment, I think that is an exceedingly fair approach and allows other editors the opportunity to expand the article. The several month time frame might even be a little too generous. Perhaps we should encourage an agreement being worked on the relevant talk pages setting up a time frame for the destubbing. I think in most cases, a few weeks to a month should be sufficient. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objections to merges

• 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.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• That is reasonable. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on Merge discussions

• 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.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article length & focus

• I think a relevant discussion is the ideal article length & focus on our content. I am very leery of Long articles because I think the girth of text distracts the average wikipedia reader and maintenance becomes more burdensome. See the current Wine article. My ideal articles tend to have less then 6 sections within the table of contents. I am a big fan of splitter articles because I think "focus" should be a tad higher priority then comprehensiveness within the scope of a single article. We can still be comprehensive on a subject over the course of two or three articles. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White Zinfandel

• 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)tanner-christopher

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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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)tanner-christopher

[edit] Brotherhood Winery

• Does anyone have pictures from this winery in Washingtonville, NY?-Christopher Tanner, CCC 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopher

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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:AlexNewArtBot

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? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)