User talk:Camw/Archives/2011/January - April

Truth cannot be compromised
That was my proposed wording; maybe you removed your post when you removed that. If anything, the specific botanical meaning of the term (which is particular to that discipline, as the curator indicated, and should not be taken to apply across the board to other meanings of the term; and as what the RBCM papers say, this usage is not exclusive in British Columbia to the Okanagan. The "loose" use of the term "Oxford" is annoying; it's in the context of a publishing house that put out an encyclopedia of wine; repeating the same phrase as heard over and over again...it's being used as if it were the OED.  Pretense and deception and overblown misquotation (many of those sources don't happen to say the same thing, if you go through them all, as with the RBCM cites or in just more syntactical carefulness about some of the vegetation and fauna sharing characteristics with the Sonoran Desert/life-zone".  Cites for the "accepted and normal" usage for Sonoran Desrt are of teh course the Britannica, M-W, any other real encyclopedia (including the American, I'd suppose), and the EPA. Since the word "Oxford" has been fielded, a Sonoran Desert citation from any real encyclopedia or paper from that university or its publishers (other than a wine encyclopedia, if it's even from them - not all publishing houses named "Oxford" have to do with Oxford University or the OED....Skookum1 (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My comments
The purpose of my comments is to advocate for consistency in evaluating the reliability of sources. I think that the same level of scrutiny should be devoted to sources during a DYK submission as during an AfD debate. I think wineries should be held to the same standards of notability as other topics - no more, no less. If a hot dog stand had the same worldwide coverage as Falesco then it too is notable and should have a Wikipedia article - see an article I wrote Whoa Nellie Deli. As for use of blogs in winery articles, I've only written one, Hagafen Cellars and the only blog used was by a professional journalist, Jake Tapper. That's an exception to the general prohibition against blogs. In conclusion, I sincerely respect Agne's expertise but I don't like it when expert editors try to roll over newcomers. That's my thinking. Cullen328 (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which newcomer am I'm trying to roll over? The editor who created Falesco over 3 years ago and who deprodded it nearly 2 years ago in the same sorry shape and with the same notability concerns unaddressed? Is it you? An editor with almost 2 years of experience yourself and who clearly knows how to write a quality winery article (which I duly praised on Wikipedia_talk:WINE). I think everyone involved here is an adult who sincerely cares about the project and knows enough about how Wikipedia functions that we can have a productive discussion. I do think going after Camw's article was a low blow and counterproductive, especially since he was sympathetic to your viewpoint. While Cristom wasn't ready for a WP:FAC, I will say that if in over 3 years of existence the Falesco micro-stub reached anything close to what Cristom or Hagafen Cellars had become, I would have never submitted it for AfD. But this article has had ample opportunity to develop and in researching why that hasn't happen, I'm left to believe it is because of the lack of WP:SIGCOV needed to pass WP:GNG or WP:WINERY and develop it into a worthwhile article. Even though you have invested much effort in trying to mine for table scraps of sources to save this article, the fact that you choose to attack Camw's article instead of actually using these sources to improve the Falesco article strongly hints that deep down, you have some skepticism yourself about the usability of those sources and the potential to actually make a worthwhile article here. I don't know what "victory" there is to an AfD Keep when the article is still going to be in the same sorry shape it has been in for going on 4 years now. AgneCheese/Wine 18:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed my comment from the AfD as I didn't really want to generate another round of this. For the record I was talking about reference 23 Hagafen Winery Visit I am aware of the exception for blogs with editorial oversight. Yes, my sourcing can be improved - I would have been more receptive if you'd approached me on my talk page separately to discuss your concerns rather than trying to use it as some sort of point against Agne who I know does a ridiculous amount of good for this project, even though I rarely agree with her on deletions/notability when it isn't clear cut. I still don't understand your approach over finding good sources and applying them to the Falesco article - that is the best way to ensure valid articles get kept and that is what I was trying to assist with. Camw (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback from both of you. You are right, Camw, that, I used a second blog reference besides Jake Tapper's in my Hagafen article, and I apologize for overlooking that one. I have removed that blog reference about their vineyards from the article, and will search for a better reference about their vineyards. Their winemaker Ernie Weir will return from a trip to Israel in about ten days, and I will be meeting with him to photograph the winery.  I will go through his clipping file at that time.  By the way, I had no advance contact at all with Hagafen about my plans for this article, but they have been very gracious and appreciative about my efforts.  I also want to apologize to you, Agne, for not noticing your positive comments about my Hagafen article on the Wine Project page when I first added the article.  I failed to add that page to my watch list and so just read it now. Your comments were very gracious and your suggestions were very positive.  I will take them seriously.  I will try to make peace with both of you by working to transform the Falesco article into a halfway decent article.  Let me make one last thing clear - I am not criticizing either of you as individuals.  You clearly are both editors who contribute a lot, and I value the contributions of productive editors such as you.  Instead, I am trying to argue for a consistent evaluation of reliable sources across all articles and in all venues.  If I yield to the temptation to use a source that is not reliable, then I welcome any editor such as Camw pointing it out, and I will gladly remove the source as I have done here.  If the reliable sources say the topic is notable by covering it in depth, then it is notable. If any editor adds unreliable sources (myself included), then can't we all agree that those sources should be removed?  My goal here is to try to help make the encyclopedia better.  Thank you, and peace to both of you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response. I will remove the AfD nom so you can have time to work on the article. However, I still have a feeling reshaping the article into a bio on Riccardo Cotarella with a Falesco sub-section is the way to go. AgneCheese/Wine 17:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and if you are able to do something with Falesco (or better yet, create a new article of Cotarella), then add your name and the article to the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine table for our WP:WID project. AgneCheese/Wine 18:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I hope Falesco can be brought up to a reasonable standard and I look forward to seeing the result. I wish I had access to more Italian wine books, hopefully the Massachusetts Beverage Business source will help a little bit. Camw (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking ahead to next month
Hey Camw! Are you familiar with Stefano Lubiana Wines in Tasmania? I only know of them because they've provided a boat load of really great free-use viticulture and winemaking images on Flickr that I was able to upload to Commons. (Here are just a few) I figure you are a better judge of notability for Australian wineries and probably have access to better Australian wine sources than I do here in the States. If they are notable enough for an article, it is something to keep in mind for next month's WP:WID2011. AgneCheese/Wine 18:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They are probably one of the better sparkling producers in Tasmania (in the top 3-4 probably). Will have to have a look for sources as I wouldn't say they are definitely notable. Have a feeling they might have been the first to plant Nebbiolo in Tasmania but will have to check on that. Will maybe look into drawing up a list of wineries/people I think would be suitable for articles that could be used with your monthly suggestions. Camw (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A list like that would definitely be great! :) AgneCheese/Wine 01:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 NSW Premier League season
Hey mate, sorry to bother you about something to me which appears to be simple to fix. How do i fix the Parramatta Eagles link in the league table for the 2011 NSW Premier League season ladder. Nath1991 (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. Just had to create a template at Template:Fb team Parramatta Eagles, I just based it off one of the other team templates and it looks to be working. Camw (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Cristom Vineyards
Hello,

As agreed, I have expanded the Falesco article. Now that a few days have gone by, I have posted some comments on the talk page for Cristom Vineyards regarding my concerns about the reliability of some of the sources. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Victory Coach
I heard the rumour 2 days ago. I could have posted it then, but didn't have a reliable source. You're not new here. You know the rules. You cannot post something as significant as that without a source. You declare it a waste of time. I'm sorry. You're just plain wrong!

(Why are soccer fans some of the most difficult people to deal with on Wikipedia?) HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverting it and not doing a 5 second search on something like google news to see if it was confirmed improved the encyclopedia how exactly? There is a difference between unverified and unverifiable. I have nothing to say in regards to your comment about editors you have problems with other than I thought you were better than that. Camw (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop being silly. As I said, I had received that news 2 days ago myself, but didn't have a reliable source. Apparently the appearance of a source was what changed. You knew that. I didn't. In fact, I looked at one usually reliable source, The Age, and it didn't say a thing. So from my perspective there was still no source. If finding a source was so easy, why didn't YOU do it? HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Archiving criticism
Good move. Given all your comments about reliability of sources that you had at the start, it makes you look a lot less hypocritical now. I'm awaiting an apology for that edit summary suggesting that me asking for a source was a waste of time. It makes you look quite silly. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mitch Nichols - April Fools
Oh dear, i feel like such an idiot at the moment. Got the link off FourFourTwo, damn bastards. Nath1991 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Northern Tigers
Hi mate. It doesn't mention the team - it mentions the team's owner association, the Ku-ring-gai & District Soccer Association who of course own more than one team. It might be more accurate to say that the association has the relationship but they are just the functional business entity behind the team - they sign the players, pay fees, take out insurance, etc. The functional part of the relationship would be between the Sydney FC board / corporation and the Ku-ring-gai & District Soccer Association. But from the perspective of the fans / public the relationship is between the two teams - they play each other, train together (occasionally), etc.

The "relationship", I imagine, would theoretically allow someone playing for a lower-ranked (or lower-age-level) Ku-ring-gai team to be "scouted" by Sydney FC though in practice (and understandably so) they would likely focus on each association's top-flight team.

The "feeder" relationship in Australia has always been far more informal than in other countries because our second-flight teams are usually semi-professional or amateur so contract / transfer issues do not necessarily apply. From memory, Sydney FC considers most associations and clubs in the Sydney Metro area to be "feeders" to their club - if only in the sense that they will consider any talented player from any area on their merit. Use whatever language you believe is appropriate - I'm sure the line is only there to better explain where the club fits into the various tiers of Australian football.