Talk:Third-wave coffee

Characteristics
I am considering adding a section on characteristics that would clarify what qualifies as "third wave" coffee. Some parts of the second paragraph could be expanded. Information would include general roasting techniques, brewing equipment, characteristics of third wave shops, and comparisons to other schools of thought within the specialty coffee movement. Any objections? Markjohnson303 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC).

Like wine?
The claim that wine is by nature artisinal is untrue. Much wine that is produced is very much a commodity. There should be another means of conveying this aspect of the definition of third wave coffee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.187.184 (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * surely the first difference is that grapes aren't harvested in 3rd world nations by unskilled labour. I'm not sure that wine is produced as a "commodity", pretty sure any winemaker would absolutely disagree, even Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.81.70 (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Peets and Third Wave
I am about to delete the claim that Peets has anything to do with Third Wave. I have always thought of it was second wave, long before the idea of 3rd wave existed, and an article like this seems to agree that it, like Starbucks is 2nd, not 3rd wave. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality
I've added a NPOV template to the page, and citation tags. This article reads like an advertisement for "Third-Wave Coffee," needs clearer language, and better sources. theBOBbobato (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * theBOBbobato, Michael.C.Wright, I think that the remaining NPOV problem was the lead, which was promotional and unreferenced, so I have replaced that and removed the tag. I have linked the article to Template:Did you know nominations/Monmouth Coffee Company so I want to ensure that it has a reasonable NPOV. TSventon (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

North America centric
This page is very North America centric, which isn't a problem in itself, the problem is that it never acknowledges that and never relates the coffee culture it describes to the coffee culture in other parts of the world. Instead it reads as if it were describing a universal phenomenon.

A more accurate term would be something like "Third wave of coffee in North America"

Other countries, even other western countries (eg. Australia, Italy, Norway) have their own coffee culture completely distinct from the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.223.180.220 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The best way to accomplish this would be to establish a wikipedia account and start editing the article. You can catalog accounts of Third Wave Coffee that are not centered on North America. That would be a great way to expand the article. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I kind of agree with the unsigned comment. IMO the point may be that the whole notion of "third wave coffee" is North American. I live in Belgium (which in anyone's book is one of the world's greatest coffee cultures) and I had never heard of it. If anything, in Belgium, things have gone the other way: we already had artisanal coffee, and more recently have experienced a wave of mass-market US "second wave" coffee outlets, primarily Starbucks. Perhaps the best way of dealing with this would be to begin with "The term 'third wave coffee' is a label given PRIMARILY IN NORTH AMERICA to coffee businesses......" Any objections? Theeurocrat (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The article should cover the third wave outside the US. Theeurocrat I am based in the UK and third wave coffee exists here, partly imported from Australia and NZ, but perhaps the term is used more in the industry than by consumers. Perhaps European countries with great coffee cultures don't feel the need for a third wave. TSventon (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Be bold:
 * "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia.
 * Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Michael.C.Wright, I think you have said this (partly) to me before. Unfortunately some problems take much longer to fix than to identify. I am trying to take Monmouth Coffee Company to WP:DYK so I will try to add a few sentences about the third wave in the UK shortly. TSventon (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. In my reply, tone of voice can be very hard to read. The "Fix it yourself..." statement is a direct quote from the Be Bold wiki article. My response was not meant to be flippant or dismissive as much as letting folks know that if they feel strongly about an edit, they should proceed with it. 👍
 * Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Short description
Abductive the previous short description was "Movement aiming to enhance coffee diversity", which you changed to "Movement aiming to reduce inequality in the coffee business". I think the original was confusing, but referred to diversity in the contents of the coffee cup, rather than in the coffee business, so I have changed it to "iteration of the coffee business that began in the year 2000", based on the third-wave feminism short description. Any better ideas are welcome. TSventon (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to Coffee business movement starting in 2000 which is shorter (per WP:SDSHORT) and simplifies the statement without trying to define the motives — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Coordinates
The Anome, this article doesn't need coordinates. Does it need a tag to make that clear? Apologies if have asked the same question before. TSventon (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Removing the bot-generated tag should generally be sufficient, as the bot remembers its edits and will not revisit an article a second time (unless the article gets renamed). But the way to make absolutely sure is to give the relevant article category (in this case 'Category:Coffeehouses and cafés in the United States') an empty, or a '*', category tag, which will let the bot know the article relates the general subject of cafés in the United States, not an actual cafés. See this diff for the change. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , thank you, I only notice your bot when it edits an article on my watchlist, which is not often.