Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Wines task force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scharks (talk | contribs) at 02:53, 5 May 2007 (Updated archive box). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 9 days are automatically archived.
WikiProject iconWine Unassessed (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Wine, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WineWikipedia:WikiProject WineTemplate:WikiProject WineWine articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:WID notice

Operation Stub-killer 2

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

Regions/styles (3)
Amarone, Austrian wine, Chablis (wine), Coonawarra, Côte de Beaune, Côte de Nuits, Egri Bikavér,Hungarian wine, Lebanese wine, New World wine, New York State wine, Rheinhessen, Ribera del Duero, Sancerre (wine), South African wine (now a Top Importance!), Vinho Verde, Vouvray (wine)
"the rest" (0)
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)[reply]
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. FlagSteward 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeay, I've just about killed "the rest" :-)))))))) The only matters outstanding are the future of Charmat, which depends on what happens with Sparkling wine/Champagne production - which is a Big Decision that I guess will get sorted in time - and Süssreserve. I was wondering if perhaps Bethling might take the latter, and Agne take Amarone as little projects to get to Start - I'm not talking another chaptalization :-)), a bit more hard info and some wikifying would get both of them there. In return, I know one of you mentioned that Hungarian wines was on your list to do, I'll make a start on that one over the weekend. At least with the regional articles you can just get on with writing the things rather than having to fuss about setting up merger discussions - but I figured that it was best to do the 'difficult' ones first and then coast into the regional stuff whilst discussions were ongoing.
  • Another thing - Dessert wine. This is another overview article which was really satisfying to do. It's not there yet, it needs a load of referencing and could do with some more info and more internal links. But it's got me thinking about how important that kind of "gateway" article is. Done right, they can really help casual readers 'get into' all the articles around here, as long as they don't bog down that casual reader, but rely on articles further down the hierarchy to fill in the detail. I've not thought it through yet, but one obvious conclusion is that overview and in particular country articles deserve more weight than I've given them - partly because it's much more fun writing about stuff you can drink :-)) Needs thinking about more. But in the meantime, please do all have a look at Dessert wine. FlagSteward 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After pondering it some more, I can see the benefit in Champagne production being retitled to Sparkling wine production with charmat being merged in. I'm not sure if any one else has any further objections but I will drop mine. AgneCheese/Wine 10:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for Amarone. I'll see what I can do. :) AgneCheese/Wine 10:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, NWW will happen in the next few days, honest, I was so dosed up on codeine at the weekend that I was only fit for bits of 'mechanical' wikifying, not creating big articles. As you can see, I've lost Hermitage and Cd Rhone to the Mid category, as that's where most of the AOC's and AVA's are or should be - and I couldn't believe that Austrian wine was a Low stub, and Coonawarra a Mid stub. There's more that could be promoted, but I figured we can think about that once the current lot had been killed - it seemed fair to swap two articles each :-), even if a country article is a lot more work to kill. Having done Hungary, I quite fancy Austria as the next big one to tackle after NWW. FlagSteward 14:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making progress - I've not been very well these last few days hence lack of progress on articles that need some thought, but NWW and Austria are my next big targets. But they're slowly ticking down - although I'm leaving Rheinhessen to last, as we actuallly need a major sort out of all the German regions. And having done the Coonawarra article, I did a link to the Google Map of the area, it's quite cool that the terra rossa is really obvious on the satellite picture :-) The Lebanon article is also now looking quite good, although I must admit that it could probably do with a copyedit, my brain really is a bit scrambled at the moment thanks to the drugs. Oh and thanks for the barnstar Agne :-)) - but I won't be happy til all those High Stubs have died...... FlagSteward 17:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, New World wine is now done, see what you think of it. IMO it now has a good structure as a 'gateway' article that could take it to GA and beyond.... It could do with more work, but I really want to get on with killing stubs, it would be fantastic to get them all done by the end of the month although I'm not sure I'll manage it on my own. I'll see how I get on with the smaller regions once I've got the last 'biggy' out of the way in the form of Austria. Still, progress of a sort, we would have got under 10 High Stub regions if it hadn't been for that pesky Ribera del Duero - it had better get to Start pronto, Mick FlagSteward 13:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, alright then... :o) mikaultalk 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woohoo, the last of the 'biggies', Austrian wine is now done and looking pretty good - I can't believe it was a Low Stub until recently. Could do with a bit of 'hardening' of the references, and some photos of wine and vineyards, and perhaps another pair of eyes to copy edit it, but I reckon it's a 'good' B now, not far off GA. Which in turn has got me thinking about a few things - will post in a new section. Still looking touch and go whether I will manage to kill all the high stubs by the end of the month as per my original target, but it's really nice knowing that all the ones that are left should be the sort that can be knocked up into a Start pretty easily - just the foreign Wikipedias should get me most of the way there (well that's what I did with Vouvray :-) ) FlagSteward 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ach, end of the month and it hasn't quite happened - but today I've hunted down all the other High Stubs not mentioned above so we really are down to those last 4 regional ones now. Should go in the next day or two, although Rheinhessen gets complicated as the German regions are really the start of 'what happens next', but the two Cotes shouldn't need much work. Frustrating getting so close to doing it by month end as I'd planned, if only I'd had the quiet Sunday to myself like I hoped for rather than the "start with receiving two 90-minute phone calls and downhill from there..." :-( Oh, and good work on the RdD article Mick :-) FlagSteward 23:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Participants list/Project Activity/RfA endorsements

There is an interesting discussion going at WP:CANVASS about a proposed "adminship criteria" that would require an endorsement by a Wikiproject before some editors would support an RfA candidate. Part of the concern voiced by some editors is that this would encourage people to join Wiki projects for the wrong reason or just sign up for a project that they don't plan on participating with. I think that is a valid concern and it got me thinking about the overall activity of members on our Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Participants list. How many members just sign their name to the list and then disappear?
In delivering the newsletter, I've already noticed a considerable amount of users who have had little or no activity with the project (or even Wikipedia) in several weeks (or months). I think part of the usage of a participant list is that if other editors have project related questions or would like input on some wine related content, they would have a list of editors who they can go to and get a reply. If the list if cluttered with dormant or inactive editors then it not really being the resource that it should be. Of course there is no obligation to joining any project and people can post whatever "project member" userboxes they want on their userpages, but I do think we should be concern about maintaining our project list as a directory of active members rather then a list of anybody who happen to stop by and sign their name.
With that, I'd like to propose that if an editor goes inactive from all of Wikipedia for 2 months or has not contributed to a wine related article in 3 months then we'll remove them from the project list. I think the time span is fair in that it accounts for real life, wiki-breaks and sabbaticals that may come and go. The wine related contribution doesn't have to be substantial content adding but can be anything from categories to clean up. Plus editors are always free to re-add themselves if they decide they want to become more active. What do you guys think? AgneCheese/Wine 07:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a valid criteria for retaining membership in the project. I had wondered myself how many people join and never really contribute and always wondered what the motivation might be. So I wholly support the time criteria you mentioned, I think it is more than adequate and generous, however there should be exceptions noted if people mention on the board that there is an extenuating circumstance.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 08:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that it's important to note on the user's talk page if the project removed them from the list of active members. That way if they were to start editing wine articles again and/or come back to WP they'd know that they'd need to add themselves to the list again. -- The Bethling(Talk) 08:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although there's some merit in keeping people on the distro list of the newsletter, just to remind them that we're here - particularly if they're getting it by email. So rather than deleting them completely, have some kind of list of 'zombie' members? I also think 2+3 months is a bit severe maybe - perhaps 4+6 ??? For instance I can imagine that someone with finals to prepare for should be taking a Wiki break of at least 2 months....... ;-/ ;-/ FlagSteward 10:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "zombie list" sounds like a good idea. It makes its easier to re-integrate yourself back into the group when activity is resumed.AgneCheese/Wine 07:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need an Template:Undead tag ;O) mikaultalk 21:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I went ahead and created Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Inactive Participants and moved some members over. Admittedly, I did a cursory look at those who were obviously inactive. There are some editors who are fairly active Wikipedia wise but I'm not sure how active they are "wine project wise". In those cases, I didn't really dig through their contribution and rather err on the side of inclusion rather then remove them from the list. AgneCheese/Wine 22:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to state here that I do not think this is a good idea and that I do not agree with it. The members of a wikiproject does not have any extra priviliges compared to non members, and I really question if a project should restrict itself and remove members (but then others have done so before), so in my opinion to list oneself on a project only means that you are interested in edition pages in the subject, it is not an obligation to do it nor gives you any extra rights. But nevermind if this is consensus in this project it does not matter much, even if I get kicked out I would like to get the news letter and I will check in here now and then and do whatever edits to wine related pages I have time for. If we really want to single out non active members, mark them in the list as non active, but do not remove them, not sure why we woudld like to do that? Stefan 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply Well it is not "kicking anyone out" but rather it is maintaining the Participants list as a reference tool for the Wikipedia community. If other editors have subject specific questions or issues, they typically go to the participant list of the relevant wikiproject unless they want to broadcast their question/issue on the project talk page. (I know I've done this many times and I've seen it done here). If the Participants list become cluttered with dormant or inactive members then it helps no one. If people go inactive they are still part of the project but they are just "categorized" differently. AgneCheese/Wine 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taking a break from finals...I also have to disagree a little. A person may be inactive for a variety of reasons, come back one day and re-do an entire article and go back on hiatus again. I don't think that we should remove people form the list. Should be ask first on their talk page? And if they do not answer in a specified time (talking months here) then maybe they should be out. THe reason I say is because I understand why and how people may become inactive...family, finals, illness, got sick of Wikipedia for a while (it is very addictive after all), no nearby internet connection while they are abroad and many others. Some editors may not be doing much related to wine lately, but Wikipedia is quite big and the editor's attentions may be focused elsewhere at the moment. I have noticed that even though some editors are not active in the project pages are actually active in wine related articles. So, we should be careful as we go about this.--Charleenmerced Talk 15:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I understand and intentionally made the span broad and "activity" a liberal definition. Three months is a long period of time to make one single edit to one single wine related article (fix a typo, add a category, wiki link something,etc ). As I said earlier, I sure didn't scrutinize this one very heavily and I know of two editors who only wine edit period in the last three months have been to edit their name on the Participants list. But being liberal in that definition they left on the active participants list. Once again, no one is being "kicked out". They are only being properly categorized as inactive. They are always free at their choice to readd their name to the active participants.AgneCheese/Wine 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitively see the advantage of categorizing users as being active and inactive. I do think that maybe removing their names off the page onto a separate one might be a tad much. Maybe it would be better to create another section in the user list for inactive/watchers/whatever (I know other wikiprojects have something similar). Or just mark the inactive users in place in the list? --- The Bethling(Talk) 18:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like Bethling's idea.--Charleenmerced Talk 18:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, mark in list, do not remove. (as I stated this above). Stefan 00:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well Camw 02:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I'm going to be doing some traveling for the next three weeks and I'm not certain what kind of internet access I will have at the hotels that I'll be staying at. The newsletter and WID projects may go on hiatus unless till the end of May. Hopefully that won't be the case but just giving you all a heads up. AgneCheese/Wine 07:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good trip Agne, send us a postcard, at least. mikaultalk 21:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WID targets

Rewriting Austrian wine from scratch into a fairly high B has got me thinking a bit about the direction of the WID. I found it pretty easy (albeit a fair amount of work) to get that article (plus [dessert wine]] and some other countries like Hungary and Lebanon) to a B standard on my own. What I find tough is going that extra mile to get it to GA - I find I need a source of photos, access to books I don't own, perhaps access to scientific papers, and as much as anything just extra pairs of eyes to copyedit and suggest things that have been left out. One person can do the broad strokes, but you need several to fill in the small gaps. So I'm wondering, now that the embarassment of having core articles as Stubs is behind us, whether the focus of the community effort on WID should switch more to polishing B articles up to GA standard, with individuals 'adopting' Top Start articles as private projects to get up to B standard. This of course would still be quite compatible with Agne's idea of WIDing a 'family' of articles together as with Bordeaux, although I think that was a particularly ambitious place to start! :-) It's also worth noting that we now have fewer Top Starts than Top B's, which is a bit of a landmark in the quality of the core articles. As I've said over on Talk:WID, on my theory of 'diagonals' it's just as important to get Top Starts to Top B as it is to get High Stubs to High Start, but that's not me volunteering to clear the Top Starts in the way that I've (almost) killed the High Stubs! FlagSteward 17:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to somewhat disagree with this. I think we have to still focus on Stubs since there are so many important stubs-articles that should be better. As a side project we can adopt a B or Start artcle for the week or something like that. But, the state of articles is not that great to just focus on the B and Start articles jsut yet. I suggest that the WID should still be used for Stubs or Starts and then a side project should go on for B-to- GA articles.--Charleenmerced Talk 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there is the "B-article" adoption. But I agree that we should keep WID to stubs and starts. The Bordeaux one is going "okay" but that is partly because off-wiki life is cutting into the overall activity of the project. AgneCheese/Wine 15:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying Stubs should be abandoned - but given that within a few days all the High Stubs will be dead, then our priorities start to change. Certainly in a world where the only stubs are Mid and Low priorities, stubs become irrelevant as the primary focus of a WID, we're not going to have the whole community spending two weeks sorting out Franzia or the Perold biog. As we come into the 'third diagonal' (sorry, it was Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine/Newsletter where I brought this up, not WID), then moving all the Tops to GA is as important as all the Highs to B and the Mid Stubs to Start. Of those, it will be a lot more challenging IMO to get the 30 GA's than the 90 B's or the 200 Starts. So the most difficult task should become our top priority.
    • I think we should set ourselves a challenge along the lines of "Get all the Top Articles to GA within a year".
I think that's probably quite an ambitious target, given how good the WP has been at getting GA's so far.... ;-/ And having written 7-8 major articles to B-ish standard in the last few weeks, I reckon I've a good feeling why. It's pretty easy as an individual to get an article up to 'bad B' standard, it gets exponentially harder to get it to 'high B' standard - and it's very, very hard for one individual to get these major articles up to GA standard (qv Chaptalisation?). As I mentioned above, it's partly a question of one person just having the resources - books, journals, photos, maps - and partly a simple need to have more eyeballs copyediting it. On the other hand groups -as might be organised by the WID - do have access to all those different resources and copyediting skills. I guess you could summarise it thus :
    • Individuals - OK at Start-> B, very bad at B -> GA
    • Groups - OK at Start-> B, good at B -> GA
Therefore it makes sense to concentrate our WID resources at the chokepoint, to make sure that the article really does make it over the line to GA, and rely on individuals to bring articles up to B to go into the pipeline - so adopt a Start, not a B. There's also the more practical matter that it makes sense to do the less ambitious GA's during the northern hemisphere summer, when more people are likely to away on holiday, doing exams, or just spending less time at the computer. If you're taking the long view that all 29 have to be GA'd at some point within the next year, then we should do the least (wo)manpower-intensive articles during May-September. And if that's not enough for people, there's no shortage of High Starts and Mid Stubs to be getting on with.... Hmm - this ended up being a bit longer than I expected, I was meaning to do a big 'what next' once the High stubs are finally dead. Few things have cropped up today that meant I did less than I hoped, so Monday might be looking iffy, there's a good chance of them being done Tuesday though - they're all 'easy' stubs left. FlagSteward 01:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit busy IRL at the mo but feel my real forte here is in the polishing, copyediting, formatting and furnishing-with-images department. I love writing them but I'm short on paper-based ref material and find writing extra-time consuming as a result. B-busting is something I can do: I'd happily step in to help bring things up to GA (and take all the glory ;o)) as happened with Charleen's Carmenere page. When I have more time, I can get in earlier and collaborate, as happened with Tempranillo. Your Austrian wine page is great and would be easy to get to GA from where I'm sitting. Stubs-wise I can still help out (stub>start) - I've got some more Ribera del Duero stuff to add, btw! I'll do it later today, honest! - but overall I agree we should slightly refocus WID activity where it is shortly going to be seriously lacking (top starts) and already in motion (start>B>GA, even GA>FA?!) mikaultalk 13:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still have to disagree with changing the focus of WID. I still think it should be focused on Stubs. The WP is full of stubs, it is mostly stubs. There are some articles that are pretty important, that are stubs, and should be improved. I suggest that we do a side porject to get B to GA. The main focus of at this point should be to add the msot information possible to articles and then later polish them. This way, we can form a more complete database for info on wine. Later, when there are a considerable less amount of stubs, we can focus all of our energy on B-to-GA articles. Ok, back to studying....--Charleenmerced Talk 15:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still in the same camp as Charleen. However, I have no problem with a "Joint WID"-nominate one B article and one stub/start each week. Ideally they would have some theme like a stub class wine grape article that is well known in a particular b class wine region article. AgneCheese/Wine 15:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar proposal

It really is about time we had our own, don't you think? I've just proposed the one we discussed over at the Barnstar proposals page for etiquette's sake.. the whole proposal page is up for deletion, but I thought I should do it anyway and drum up support for it here. Is this unethical? Do I care? ;o) mikaultalk 12:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Mick, I thought you were gonna change the corkscrew to a wine flass or bottle or something?--Charleenmerced Talk 15:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi! Well, I do remember offering to try, if enough people were interested in seeing it, and I did actually have a look at getting the barnstar to look convincing through a wine glass.. hands up - it was technically reaally tough and I basically gave in! I guess because it wasn't looking as 'believable' and because there was no further call for a glass-based one, I decided to fall back on the corkscrew idea. Ouch! Another good reason - it would have to be red or white wine; the corkscrew and bubbly cap covers all bases. So there. ;o) mikaultalk 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment log archive

I thought WP:WINE was taking rather long to load, and worked out it was almost 400kb, thanks to the assessment log being included, which contained a record of every change made during the stub assessment drive of early March. Just to ease things a bit I've offloaded 300kb of the older part of the log into Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Wine_articles_by_quality_log/Archive - it's all done manually, but I guess I'll remember to delete it at some point in three months time, as it would be if the bot was doing it. Whilst I think about it - scharks, is there any way of adding the new stub types to the template section on the home page?
I've got something to add to just about all the sections on this page, but I'm just back home and it's late.... FlagSteward 01:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to get to that :) Will have a look tonight. ◄scharks► 05:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appellation mergers

As we get down into the Mid Stubs, we're going to be hitting a whole load of appellation articles, and I thought it might be worth a discussion of what the general approach is with these. My feeling is that if you have a well-known district, with lots of slightly obscure AOCs, then in general it's probably best to merge them into the main article - as long as there is an article of the form Xxxxxx AOC that redirects there. For instance it feels sensible to merge in Chablis Grand Cru AOC, Chablis Premier Cru AOC, and Petit Chablis into the main Chablis (wine) article. On the other hand if there's little benefit in doing that, the AOC article can stand as the main article. There also seems to be different approaches when it comes to geography articles that share their names with wines - given that we're en:wiki, I reckon that gives us rights to the main article name when it comes to something like Sancerre, where 95% of English usage will be referring to the wine, with a See Also Sancerre (commune) at the top. I suspect the Geography project might disagree. Also, do we really need to have both the town and the wine tagged as part of the Wine Project? My feeling is that we probably only need the wine, as long as the article contains a pointer to the town. I've no absolute views on all this, but I figured that it was worth an airing before we get stuck into all those Mid Stubs. FlagSteward 01:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we sometimes may need to tag the region as well. For example, I think both the Rioja region (this is just an example, because the Rioja region is not and should not be tagged since there is not enough info about wine in the article, I guess it should be in a case by case basis) and Rioja wines articles should be tagged. As long as the articles relates to wine, it should be tagged.--Charleenmerced Talk 14:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Languedoc wine page featured on Wine Blogging Wednesday

FYI, The podcast wine for newbies featured the information from our Languedoc wine article quite extensively for its podcast on Languedoc wine (which you can hear here). Take a listen. AgneCheese/Wine 07:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wine Library TV and Gary Vaynerchuk update

After two weeks with no comments/objections and most importantly no improvement to the Wine Library TV article, I went through with the merging to Gary Vaynerchuk. I did some clean up in regards to the trivia and some of the self referencing. I still don't feel 100% okay with some of the info left in, especially in the absence for more non-trivial independent reliable sources, but it is tolerable "policy wise" for now. AgneCheese/Wine 21:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Wines_task_force&oldid=128351635"