Talk:Rubicon Estate Winery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Merge proposal

We don't need two article for the same winery.--Kharker 14:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it the same in anything but architecture and location? If not, it's just two historical businesses at the same address.Wikidemo 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the website for Inglenook, it appears to be maintained as a separate entity. Merging would be confusing and potentially damaging to the reputation of one of the historic businesses, unless valid reasons for such a merging is found in facts stated by citable third party sources. Just my $0.02 JERRY talk contribs 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Yes, I think they pulled up roots (no pun intended) and moved somewhere else, probably a virtual winery. It gets down to the question of whether winery articles are primarily about the wines, the place, the vineyards, or the business enterprise. When a new group takes over a historic winery operation, if they basically keep it the same and continue in the same tradition (despite a possible change of name) then it's the same company. But I tend to think of California wineries as brands/businesses, so if the new group just buys out the building, facilities, and perhaps the vines, and start making wine in a new way with a new identity (as Coppola has done a few times), I would say it's a different thing. This doesn't come up very often becuase for the typical notable California estate winery, all four (possibly excepting the grapes) are at the same place. I suspect the exceptions (virtual wineries, wineries moving around, multiple brands out of one winery, different companies marketing the exact same wine under their own name, multiple wineries per brand, etc.) are usually not notable so we don't have to deal with them often. Wikidemo 01:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Inglenook ceased to exist as winery when the Francis Coppola interests acquired the estate. It has since been renamed, and as such, Inglenook is no more. Nov.4, 2007.

I did some further research. The Inglenook brand still exists as a relatively popular "value wine" (the lowest category before jug wine) owned by Constellation Brands (which is why someone who is into wine has probably never heard of it). Cuppola bought the property in chunks from 1975 through 1994, and the succession of owners of the original winery and brand gradually applied the brand to other wines and moved production elsewhere. Hence Cuppola owns the physical legacy of the winery, but Constellation owns the brand identity. Under the circumstances it makes sense to treat Inglenook as its own phenomenon, and this discussion seems to have died down, so I am removing the merge tag. Wikidemo 02:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)