User talk:Agne27/Archive 9

Welcome Wiki-Winos! Please direct your responses to my sub-page User talk:Agne27/Wiki-Winos and I will be sure to include them in a future Wine Project Newsletter.

If you came here with comments about the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), all you every need to know about how I might reply back can be found at User:Agne27/City, State convention.

Kendall-Jackson Winery Entry
The expanded entry for Kendall-Jackson Winery is both researched and fact checked by the winery itself. We also attempted to write it in the style of about 10 other California winery entries on Wikipedia to ensure it was acceptable. Is there something specific about this entry that you do not care for? I am confused why you keep putting back the very brief entry that existed before we posted an expanded article. I'd love to see an example of a winery entry that you feel is the appropriate style. We are doing our best here to provide more information on the winery in the correct Wikipedia style. Thanks for any feedback you can provide.User:KVice —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Please read WP:RS and WP:CITE for how to construct a properly referenced article. However, it sounds like you may have a Conflict of Interest due to your close relationship with the winery. I recommend that you propose your changed on the Talk:Kendall-Jackson page per the WP:COI policy. AgneCheese/Wine 16:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Belgian wine
OI wine lover. Can you expand Belgian wine? Why on earth was this missing? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 18:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL....Perhaps because the Belgians make better beer? :P Thanks for the start up, I'll add it to my list :) AgneCheese/Wine 02:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL yeah they are not exactly the worlds leading producer now are they. Excellent work on this project, the wine red infoboxes look great I think too. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 14:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Claude Dubois-Millot
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Claude Dubois-Millot, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Smitty (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing of the Mount Pleasant Winery page
Hi,

I was the one who did the research for the references that were on the Mount Pleasant Winery page that you edited out because you claimed "sources cited does not reference this."

This isn't the biggest thing in the world, but those references were accurate and fit the wikipedia criteria. They also took days to obtain, so it does not appear that you were able to check the reference within eleven minutes unless you are a TTB agent. What specifically do you not know or understand of those references and why do you feel that they are not accurate?

The other edits where you deleted the Branson winery and left my refences without a body of work that they are refering to were corrected by others, but I do agree with them (and I believe that you should to) that your edits were, well bluntly, sloppy.

However, that is another subject. I am just asking why you feel the government filings are not accurate or proper. Mowineguy (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not a TTB agent but my uncle is and when I emailed him the file number it came up with nothing. An online search also didn't come up with any reference to any filing in relation to Mount Pleasant Winery. It is very important that all references be verifiable. Besides that, the content was also not very encyclopedic and would be more appropriate for a WP:WINEGUIDE or an WP:ADVERT, rather than an encyclopedia. We are not here to document or advertize every wine made by every winery but rather the history and significant contribution that the winery has made to the world of wine. AgneCheese/Wine 17:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ask your uncle for me how they reference their colas. Is he a field agent and if so, which sector? The filing number that I used was TTB ID number. It also corresponds to their on line reference number. It's the only filing number that is generated on the TTB F 5100.31. The winery's name is actually MPW, INC with a dba of Mount Pleasant Winery and it will pop up the whole 500+ colas that they have. As far as the content, that was not the reason stated for your edit and that is another discussion in its entirety. I am more curious about how to document that form TTB F 5100.31 as a reference. Mowineguy (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to give you more personal information about my family. The fact is still the verifiability of the reference is in question. But the bigger picture is still the encyclopedic concerns. It is a very common occurrence that material of questionable or insanely hard to verify sources are quite often beyond the scope of what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. We see this often in WP:BLPs where someone wants to insert some very personal information from court documents. Besides the difficulties in verifiability, we must also look at its relevance to be in an encyclopedia entry. Do you have any reliable, independent, third party sources that talk about the importance of the port style wine to the Missouri wine industry or as a symbol of Mount Pleasant? AgneCheese/Wine 02:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and seek third party confirmation on how to do the proper referencing of the government filings since you really are not attempting to specifically answer the question. I only am asking how to properly refer those government filings and did not mean to invade your space. Anyway, it appears that both of us do not know how to do the reference properly, you do not know how to obtain the reference and you do not know what the reference is. It obviously meets the wiki criteria of verifiability since US government documents filings are referenced all over wikipedia, the US government is generally regarded as neutral (especially on subjects of bureaucratic filings) and the TTB is a disinterested party. Sorry to waste your space.Mowineguy (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well again, the applicable policies are WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE for referencing. But I do ask you to be mindful of the broader encyclopedic purpose of wikipedia and that fact that we are not a WP:WINEGUIDE. There is no purpose or need to advertise a winery's series of port wine in an encyclopedia article. Our WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:ADVERT policies have some good information in that regard. Looking at your editing history (as this user and the IPs that you used), it seems to be singularly confined to the topic of Mount Pleasant, which may give hint of a potential WP:COI. I would encourage you to consider working on other wine related articles that you may have an interest in but are not personally invested in. Going beyond a topic that you are personally invested in will give you a better under standing of how Wikipedia works and what is relevant to an encyclopedia entry. When you are personally invested in a subject, it is very easy to want to advertise and insert non-encyclopedia material in the article to make the topic look better to potential customers. AgneCheese/Wine 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, I would like to add WP:OWNERSHIP to the long list of policies above, since Mowineguy writes about "our" article. Tomas e (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Trentino Cab.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Trentino Cab.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability question
Hi Agne, I've been looking through the (1000+) wine Stub articles and I see a lot that are completely unnotable - even less than Capture Wines! My question is: How do I mark an article for deletion? I've read the guidelines, but they're a bit complex to grasp on a first reading! Is there a simple tag or template or whatever that I can just add to an article for being unnotable? --BodegasAmbite (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The most simple way is to add a a prod such as reason with noting the applicable notability guideline that the article is not meeting and how. With wineries you will often be referencing WP:CORP and the lack of substantial (i.e. non-trivial) coverage in reliable, third party sources. If the prod is contested and removed, the next step would be an WP:AFD. AgneCheese/Wine 01:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Agne, I took a chance and yesterday i added a Prod tag to a few apparently un-notable winery articles. previously I had marked then for speedy deletion but the admins said they didn't comply. The criteria are pretty complex, but I'm learning as I go! --BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * BidegrasAmbite, please review WP:SPEEDY. There are very specific criteria for speedy deletion. Examples would be obvious spam, no content or gibberish, non-notable biography, or author request.
 * You might want to notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine if you prod something wine-related. That way others in the wine project can look at it and decide if they agree with the deletion proposal. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry about that, I think I dove in a bit too quickly there, prodding and speed-deleting, before i really understood the rules and conventions!!! It's a lot more complex than i thought. I think I'll just concentrate on the Spanish DOs and Vinos de la Tierra articles, and leave the prodding etc to others (for the time being!). If I do prod, I'll leave a note on the project talk page. Cheers! --BodegasAmbite (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lake Chelan AVA

 * But under the 200 char limit :) AgneCheese/Wine 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ullage
Hi Agne, interesting to see that fairly basic wine-related articles like Ullage (wine) are still there to be added. Good work! I must admit that I had only seen the term applied to bottles, not to barrels, so now I can say I've learnt something new today! From what I've seen, in most European wine auctions, the ullage of Bx bottles is only specified by terms like in, vts, ts, ... that refer to the bottle shape, and in mm/cm for Burgundy bottles (as well as flutes and other shapes). Sooner or later, we could probably prepare a free image withe the terms applied to a Bx bottle, and an action photo with e.g. a Burgundy bottle and a ruler. Tomas e (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of a clear illustration of Bx levels, by the way. The terms are in English although the rest of the page is in Swedish. Tomas e (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh something like that would be a wonderful illustration! As for the terms, Broadbent's list specifically noted cms for Bordeaux so I went with it. But I can see the confusion regarding neck/shoulders between Bordeaux/Burgundy bottles. I'll keep an eye out for more sources to see if anything comments about that. AgneCheese/Wine 03:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Canaiolo at DYK
Thanks for your note about the Canaiolo hook. That entire set of hooks was on the L-O-N-G side, so I was eager (perhaps too eager) to trim them. The reference in the hook to the "modern Chianti recipe" implies that it is currently used, when I guess your intended emphasis was on the fact that it was retained in the 19th-century recipe in order to balance the Sangiovese. However, since it's still part of the current recipe (according to Chianti), it's not clear to me that there is a problem with saying "that Canaiolo is included in Chianti..."

If you don't want to imply that Canaiolo is still included in Chianti, I think that "modern" should be replaced with "19th-century", as below: However, that hook is even longer than the first. More importantly, it seems to me that all versions of this hook contain too much detail for an effective hook. Instead of enticing the reader to click on Canaiolo, readers may conclude that they know everything they want to know and not go any further. How would you feel about the following one?
 * ... that Canaiolo was included in the 19th-century Chianti recipe to add fruitiness and soften the tannins of Sangiovese, much like Merlot's effect on Cabernet Sauvignon in Bordeaux wine blends?
 * ... that Canaiolo was included in the 19th-century Chianti recipe to add fruitiness to the wine and soften the tannins of Sangiovese?

PS - On an unrelated topic, I notice that Chianti has two subsections titled "Regional differences." This seems like an sensible way of organizing things, but it actually is discouraged by MOS:HEAD due to issues that are specific to the electronic format. MOS:HEAD recommends:
 * Section names should preferably be unique within a page; this applies even for the names of subsections. The disadvantages of duplication are that
 * after editing, the display can arrive at the wrong section; and
 * the automatic edit summary on editing a section with a non-unique name is ambiguous.

--Orlady (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is still a permitted grape but it is rarely used today. I supposed part of the confusion is the word "modern" which in a wine context generally refers to the last 2-3 centuries. In relation to Chianti, Ricasoli's 19th century recipe was the first "modern" era recipe even though today's "modern" Chiantis are quite different than what he first formulated. My original intent of the hook (and also how the sources put it in context) was to describe the original intent and purpose of for including Canaiolo in Ricasoli's first modern recipe. The comparison to Merlot/Bordeaux is all relation to that past tense since no modern Chianti winemaker really think in that context today. So the hook should still be in the past tense in order to be fully in line with the sources and reality. The comparison to Merlot/Bordeaux is the most eye catching aspect (and names that the readers would recognize instead of an obscure Italian grape) so I would like to include those links as well. Thanks for the head's up about the Chianti sub sections. I'll take a look. AgneCheese/Wine 16:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hooks need to be written for people who are not familiar with the subject matter, so "modern" is a problem. As for the Bordeaux analogy, I would think that "Chianti" is enough of an eye-catcher for anyone who is interested in wine (even if they are not familiar with the meaning of "modern" in the context of oenology). How about:
 * ...that Canaiolo was included in the 19th-century Chianti recipe to add fruitiness and soften the tannins of Sangiovese, much like Merlot's role in Bordeaux wine blends? --Orlady (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point and think that the rewrite is fine. AgneCheese/Wine 03:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Torbreck
Sorry, too many other tasks going on at the moment to do anything much with it. Just as it was fine to prod the article, it was also fine for me to contest the prod. Feel free to add the sources if you have time, they are all easy to access from the link in the edit summary. Camw (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * True...but I do think deprodding comes with the responsibility of establishing more notability than just an edit summary. Fly by deproddings don't do much help in bettering the encyclopedia since we are still left with a sub-par article that doesn't establish any notability or reason for existence. I, as well, have more pressing task such as working on the South African wine and Cote Chalonnaise articles. I also wasn't the one who deproded the article. AgneCheese/Wine 04:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but deleting an article on a notable subject also does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. The prod note itself says to de-prod if you disagree with the prod for any reason, so I did. Camw (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand, but did you really help the article? Who benefits from a sub-par article that doesn't even establish a reason for existence or encyclopedic worth? Does it benefit the reader? What information do they gleam from an article that is only serving (right now, in its current state) as an WP:ADVERT since it says nothing about why it merits an encyclopedia entry? Now you say that it is a notable topic, and I extend all good faith that it may be, but right now the article doesn't say any of that and it's not serving anyone, much less Wikipedia, any benefit right now. I'm sure your heart is in the right place but empty gesture (such as deprodding without helping the article establish notability) aren't worth very much. AgneCheese/Wine 04:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The prod process is meant to be used for uncontroversial deletions. If it prompts article building as well then good, but if not then no harm has been done either through the prod or deprod. If I have time then I'll look at it, if not then someone else will, that's the nature of the beast. We are all volunteers here, I have my priorities and you have yours and we just work on what we want to as time allows. If someone feels strongly enough about the article then they can either improve it or take it to AfD for closer examination. Camw (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at expanding and referencing it. Hopefully you think it is in a much better state now. Camw (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better! It clearly establishes notability and is a great entry overall. Nice job! AgneCheese/Wine 15:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Domain Day
Hi Agne,

I had a look and in addition to the (admittedly, weak) offering of notability, there was a bit of news coverage for Domain Day, including this brief mention, this article which unfortunately we need to pay for access to, and this article in The Age. That said, I have no objection to you taking the article to AFD if you think it's warranted, as you seem to know a bit more about wine than I. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Yeah those are pretty brief, trivial mentions. I'll see what the editor that originally prodded the article wants to do. AgneCheese/Wine 04:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Agne and Lankiveil,
 * I really don't know what to do! On the one hand, I can't find very much 'real' notability out there. But on the other hand, what is 'real' notability? (see discussion on this on the project talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine
 * Anyway, there seems to be a lack of articles on wineries as opposed to a surplus! All things considered, I wouldn't take it to AfD just because it's a borderline notability case. I think now that I would only prod or take to AfD winery articles that are clearly unnotable and/or obvious spam or self-promotion.--BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say there's a "lack" of articles on wineries. The majority of wineries are simply not notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, interesting point, Amatulic. I hadn't really thought about it. But surely there must be more than 8 notable wineries in all of Italy and more than 5 in Spain (for example)? Possibly we're both right, ie as you say most wineries are not notable (there must be 100,000's in the world), and as I say, there is (or seems to be) a lack of articles on the notable ones. You want to bet a bottle of wine I can find another 10 notable wineries in Spain? :) --BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chianti
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

An idea that may interest you
If this gets consensus approval among the DYK crew, would you be willing to help spread the word and encourage submissions? I figure it would be a good way to put a sharp focus on encouraging DYKs that are not US-centric and have them be featured on a very US-centric day to boot. AgneCheese/Wine 07:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt there is much I could do to encourage submissions. Most people in my community appear much more interested in partaking in (to them) considerably more entertaining activities such as watching television, going to the movies, having parties, becoming inebriated, staying inebriated, etc.  :-)
 * Without trying to sound too defeatist, if people from other countries could be encouraged to contribute articles of their own eventually we would start getting Polish, New Zealand, Czech, Australian, Austrian, British and Spanish versions of 22 May 09 DYK entry "that with a voyage of 59 days, the SS American (pictured) set a 1901 record for the fastest New York – San Francisco ocean passage" straight from a local newspaper article or magazine of interest, re-worded slightly, and presented as an original piece-of-work.
 * Please do not get me wrong, Wikipedia is a fantastic source of knowledge. It is well-presented and obviously contributed to from a very large number of people.  But again I think the opening page could do without miniscule, boring, local articles that prominently announce US locations e.g. Louisiana, or US sports e.g. American Football, or US events e.g. the Cowboy Culture Center show on radio station KNND in Cottage Grove, Oregon.   B. Fairbairn   Talk  15:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know? Apparently an editor believes that taking a day to consciously focus on promoting hooks not relating to the US would somehow offend non-Americans. Hearing the viewpoint of a non-American would be worthwhile. AgneCheese/Wine 05:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I will have a look. There is no way that taking a day to consciously focus on promoting hooks not relating to the US would somehow offend non-Americans, except possibly some who urgently require professional help.  The only people who would be offended are from the nation to be temporarily excluded.   B. Fairbairn   Talk  16:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Gato is a good guy who doesn't need professional help. :) I just don't see the connection that he is making that by setting aside the 4th of July as a day to focus on articles relating to the Independence Days of non-US nations is somehow slighting those other countries' Independence Day in lieu of propping up the US. He's a very reasonable fellow, I'm just not following his logic here. AgneCheese/Wine 06:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of faux pas
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of faux pas. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of faux pas (third nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  17:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I am an editor is good standing trying to use a public wi-fi spot. A blanket autoblock that unfairly captures innocent editors is uncalled for. AgneCheese/Wine 02:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Wines
It was a very good point to say that only wine regions with separate articles should be included in Template:Wines, I hadn't thought about that. Tomas e (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

NEW CATEGORY PAGE
Hello Washington-user!! What do you think of this category? Either on a scale of 1-10 or with commentary. Let me know through the "Special:EmailUser/" section. #TTiT# 10:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Traveller-in-Tacoma (talk • contribs)

Château-Chalon
Hello. First of all, please forgive me if this page is not the right one for this kind of comment, since I'm not used to talking to other Wikipedians. I'd just like to comment on the revert you did to my editing of the Chateau-Chalon_AOC. I won't undo your change, since I'm not a vandal, but I'd like to express my disagreement with the reason you give WINEGUIDE, which I read carefully. The page that I modified included the mention that The producers of Château-Chalon are very particular about quality and will sacrifice an entire year's production, not making any wine, if the weather of a particular vintage was not favorable. Though a bit naive about the real reasons behind such a decision, I didn't modify this phrase and simply added the very years when the control commission decided to decline the AOC usage. This precision is a verifiable fact, and is neutral, since it is not a point of view. This kind of decision is very rare in French wines, and has the simple consequence that no Chateau-Chalon bottles can be found for those years, which appear as gaps in the 73 years history of this AOC. It is in no way a personal recommendation by me. I think that this fact has its place in an encyclopedic article, as well as any chronological fact of importance. Regards. --Olivier Debre (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the most glaring was the absence of a reliable source that could be verify. Without a reliable source citation, there is nothing to distinguish fact from WP:OR. Your edit also gave the false and misleading impression that the Oxford Companion to Wine (Footnote #1) was the reference source for the claim when that book doesn't specify those years or saying anything to that effect. I'm sure there is a compromise available that can include a WP:CITE by a WP:RS, written in a WP:NPOV manner that doesn't stray into WP:WINEGUIDE territory. AgneCheese/Wine 16:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never heard about this Oxford Companion to Wine, and didn't notice any footnote, which I didn't include. Now that I read it, it's quite clear to me that it refers to the very preceding sentence. Just to make it clear, and even if I have nothing to do with this production level, switch the reference call and sentence closing point may be a good option. As concerns insufficient sourcing, this information, well known by anybody interested in this wine, can be found all over the place, including in any good wine retail store with a knowledged tender, here are some that I found : Berthet-Bondet famous producer, official site of the Comité Interprofessionnel des Vins du Jura. I let the interested one look for English language reference, I couldn't find any. BTW, if finding sources for every bit of contribution is required, then I think you should have asked the same about the one who wrote the sentence in the first place, right? To me, this kind of affirmation is certainly tougher to defend, especially without the chronological, factual and verifiable precision that I gave. I'm sure you'll ask writers to include a WP:CITE by a WP:RS, written in a WP:NPOV manner that doesn't stray into WP:WINEGUIDE territory for every input they might dare to add: it has a nutty + curry flavor, please prove it! Resemblance with sherry? Where's the scientific study substantiating it with a well devised, statistically significant panel? Just joking, this conversation goes silly. BTW, as a side note, I just read this article suggesting this wine is forbidden in the USA. Maybe interesting thing to add to the article :-). Oh, and did you notice the unsubstantiated mention of poulet de Bresse association? Let me inform you of one thing: Bresse is not a town, it's a region (sort of, no administrative status) that I live close by. Please summon the author to correct this. The end for me, I won't touch this article and any wine related one anymore in the EN wikipedia, since I cannot understand and disagree with the argument, and definitely do not appreciate the rudeness of the way the conversation goes.

--Olivier Debre (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the source is for the entire paragraph. It is impractical to have a reference for every single line so when a single source can source the entire paragraph, you put it at the end. However, that means any additional information added to the paragraph needs to have its own unique source citation. And yes, I do ask for referencing and neutral writing for writers involved with wine articles when I come across them among the 3000+ wine articles on my watchlist. As the primary author of articles like Spanish wine, Wine and Health, Cabernet Sauvignon, Chianti, Chardonnay, Chablis, History of Champagne, History of French wine that is the expectation that I hold myself to. But more importantly, that is the expectation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AgneCheese/Wine 02:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Gallo Time cover.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gallo Time cover.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. B (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grand cru (food and drink)


The article Grand cru (food and drink) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Dictionary definition. Neologism.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Grand cru (food and drink)
I have nominated Grand cru (food and drink), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Grand cru (food and drink). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Semi-related, as he mentioned, Grand Cru isn't even mentioned in Classification of wine. Perhaps it should be? You would likely do a far better job of it than I. Cheers,  Oreo Priest  talk 06:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Chateau du Beaucastel
Hi Agnes27. I am in the process of creating a new page on Chateau du Beaucastel in Chateauneuf du Pape. However, now that I have the first draft ready, I am stuck on how to get some assistance in editing and formatting it and loading it onto the main site. Obviously, I am a newbie and have never done this before. Any suggestions? Corkcollector (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. AgneCheese/Wine 03:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice start. I did a little WP:MOS help and some work converting the references into proper WP:FOOTNOTEs . I also highlighted in bold some phrases that you may want to rework to be more WP:NPOV in tone and sounding more like what you expect in an encyclopedia instead of a WP:WINEGUIDE. On the talk page, I also left a note about some of the references. Again, nice work. AgneCheese/Wine 04:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wine & health
Hi Agne, I've been delving deep into that issue with the heavy metals and posted up some observations on the talk page. One thing we could really use is some informed opinion... remember talking about needing some input from science-oriented editors when you originally started it? Just a thought, maybe you approached someone? It's a really useful issue in the wine/health debate and one we really want to get right, I think. Anyways, just a heads-up :) --mikaultalk 10:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[[File:Boyer head shot.JPG]]
The file listed above has been marked for deletion as un-free. The template message on the image's page clearly states that magazine covers depicting a person may not be used in the article regarding that person unless the cover itself is clearly being discussed. For examples of a proper use, please see Billy Ripken. If you have further questions, please let me know. Thanks. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 13:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wine & heavy metals
All done with that section, I hope it's not too much. I find it a really interesting issue and that might be colouring my judgement :) Just say if you think it should be a bit... less. I've been promising to copyedit the whole article for ages and I could trim it as part of that. Cheers, mikaultalk 02:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting subject. What you've done looks great. I would prefer to see the list of countries still included (if anything to provide a prominent wiki-link and steer more traffic to those articles) and with your added context it should raise the POV ire of our anon friend. But I trust your judgment. AgneCheese/Wine 16:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try to work it in. Tell the truth, the controversy over generalising whole countries from single wine samples is the reason the countries got left out. Basically there's no list in the original paper, but I could reference the mentions they are given i you like. --mikaultalk 20:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Champagne or champagne?
Hi Agne, just a word about the capitalisation of champagne. The OED writes, "champagne: White (esp. sparkling) wine from Champagne". I admit that you can find your French sources that give it as upper-case "C", but the French have wholly different capitalisation protocols from us British. It's the Légion d'honneur after all, while we call it the "Legion of Honour". So I don't think we need to be taking spelling lessons from them. The idea behind using lower-case "c" is, as the OED suggests, to helpfully discriminate between the wine and the region. I say "I love Champagne", but do I mean the region or the bubbly? No one knows if both are UC. I have reverted your change, but feel free to revert mine (as long as you can provide a good argument....). As an aside, within British food and wine book publishing, lower-case "c" for the wine is the overwhelming norm. Chin chin, Ericoides (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Champagne from the Champagne region is a protected name, essentially a brand name like Pepsi or Budweiser (note the capitalization in those articles). In that context it is a proper noun and should be capitalized. When the term "champagne" is being hijacked by producers like Korbel, it becomes a different thing entirely-more a "style" rather than a distinct wine and then it should be lowercase. This is the pattern followed by the vast, vast majority of WP:RS used in wine articles and so it is only proper that Wikipedia continued the correct usage. AgneCheese/Wine 16:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the measured response. It makes me wonder why dictionaries, that by definition follow accepted usage, give the wine as "champagne". Re your analogy, I would say that a more useful analogy would be whisky: whisky is the generic name and Talisker or Highland Park are the brand names; likewise, champagne is the generic name and Heidseck, Moët et Chandon, or Krug are the brand names. Ericoides (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Legally, and therefore to all practical purposes, there is no generic term "champagne". If you're not referring to sparkling wine from the Champagne region, you're not talking about Champagne and should be calling it "sparkling wine". Other sparklers with protected designation of origin, like Cava, follow the same protocol. --mikaultalk 19:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes there is. It's the word (generic level) that describes Heidseck, Moët et Chandon and Krug (species level). I made no mention of wines from outside the Champagne region. When describing wines from Champagne, champagne is quite obviously a generic term. I refer you to the OED. Ericoides (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification
Hi Agne27. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice! Admittedly I don't have much yearning for the admin tools. As a mostly content editor, I don't come across many opportunities where I would need to use them. While I'll never say never, it just isn't a driving ambition right now. AgneCheese/Wine 20:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. While I had nothing to do with the compilation of the list, I do think that you are qualified to be an administrator, probably more so than myself. However, I agree that the tools are not very useful for content work. Regards, decltype (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Cingular rebate card.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cingular rebate card.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Now list of wineries in barossa listed in wikipedia!
See. --Stefan talk 00:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

merge?
Do you think a good strategy might be to propose a merge of those lists into List of notable American vineyards? mikaultalk 00:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately most of the wineries in the currently AfD are not notable. :) Over the last few days I've been doing some research to see how many of the wineries would qualify for an article and easily 94% of then would never pass WP:CORP. Of the remaining 6%, the majority of those are the Australian wineries. But that maybe something to consider. I really do hope the closing admin gives a good rationale on which articles they keep. A blanket "no consensus" decision helps no one. AgneCheese/Wine 00:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, totally. Just that you might get a lot of support for a merge and that would diffuse the 'keep' argument completely. I don't know, really... how many US winery articles do we have? Category:Wineries of the United States suggests >50 articles, potentially making a proper list with decent inclusion criteria and notable vineyards. --mikaultalk 00:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there is no reason we can't be WP:BOLD and do the merger after the AfD-especially if the worse case scenario come true of an admin who makes little effort during the close and just tosses out a "no consensus". We would obviously be left with one big mess that we would need to clean up. I think merging and including the Category:Wineries of the United States into one decent, well organized article would be the perfect follow up. At least then, we would have something beneficial and encyclopedic come out of this mess. AgneCheese/Wine 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute
i have raise issue on talk page about the Israeli winery located in Syrian territory occupied by israel military. please read before you revert again. Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC).
 * There will be no need to revert once the category is deleted Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_6. AgneCheese/Wine 00:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have opposed you delete request. Ani medjool (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Chianti - second hand sources
Hi Agne!
 * DM 9/08/67 = Decreto Ministeriale, 1967 august 9th., it is the norm that rules Chianti DOC.
 * DM 5/08/96 = Decreto Ministeriale, 1996 august 5th., it is the norm that rules Chianti DOCG and it's sub-areas.

Those two norms should be the fundamental sources of the article. Second hand information, for example Andre Domine "Wine" are less reliable.

Regarding other sources, please note that it is impossible to find sources that demonstrate the not existing of something. For instance, the claimed Cosimo III extension of his 1716 edict simply DOESN'T EXIST. The fact that something is written on a book doesn't make it automatically true. We can easily find the 1716 edict (Bando Sopra la Dichiarazione dé Confini delle quattro Regioni Chianti, Pomino, Carmignano, e Val d'Arno di Sopra) while there is no track of the "extension".

I think that in order to have a reliable article we should avoid second hand sources.

--Ildebrando (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to Wikipedia policies, secondary sources are preferred. See WP:PRIMARY where it says "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." AgneCheese/Wine 14:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So Sorry

 * Meant to go here with the prior comment, but your edit summary sent me to the right place, i think -- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine. Cheers. --Milowent (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. AgneCheese/Wine 19:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of wineries and vineyards in Maine
I hope you choose to relist these in the future, especially the ones that consist of nothing but ELs. If/when you do, you should take Backslash Forwardslash's advice into consideration. Batch AfD's only ask for trouble unless the articles are carbon copies of each other.  Them From  Space  21:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. The Wine project is going to take a hard look at these list and try to improve them and get them up to Wikipedia's standards. I'll see how that goes and if there is any article that is truly not salvageable. AgneCheese/Wine 05:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)