Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a wine guide

Notes

• Excellent essay! Well written, good points. -- Steve.Moulding 15:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Vintages?

Regarding cutting vintage information: I'd say cut all or cut nothing (I'd vote for cut all). The whole process of deciding what to include and exclude could easily become subjective, messy, and controversial. Maybe you mention only those great vintages from more than 10 years ago. Why 10 years? Which great vintages? All of them? Those from 100 years ago? What about terrible vintages? Which references do you cite? How many references do you need? What does great mean anyway?

No, I'd rather cut vintage information from wiki pages and see discussions of greatness (and mediocrity) in my favorite book or wine-forum. Steve.Moulding 15:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think that section needs more expansion and discussion so we can get more clear consensus. I do think there is a difference between "historic" vintages and "great" vintages that could potential warrant inclusion. Like the 1970 Bordeaux vintage but that is mostly tied to their presence in the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976 or maybe a year that saw some record sale broken. The spirit of "Wikipedia is not a wine guide is that we don't want people to see Wikipedia as a tool on picking which wine to drink and so a vintage needs to have some "historic" or "encyclopedic" significance beyond just being a good year to drink. Agne 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that if there are references for a vintage 10, 15, even 20+ after the fact for what ever reason in notable and verifiable sources, then there probably could be a reasonable argument made to include a mention of it. I'd like to see it avoided in almost all cases, but I do agree with Agne that there is something different between a "great" and a "historic" vintage. Just don't know how to put my finger on it right now. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 21:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Historic significance is an important point (not necessarily the only one). If a particular vintage is mentioned as great, say in a novel or some other non-specialist text, you ought to be able to cross-check in an encyclopedia whether there was really something special about it. Andrew Dalby 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be concern about the "mentioned in a novel" part falling into the realm of trivia which is a dicey area itself. Agne 09:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to see vintage port excluded from this. Port is typically sold non-vintage and only sold as a vintage in years that are declared to be great. It would hard to discuss port without referring to these years. Rmhermen 17:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see an exclusion for vintage port but probably for vintages that were almost universally declared vintage years by all the port houses. Just about every year is declared "vintage" by some port house but if there is a "consensus" so to speak then that might merit mention due to the rareness of that happening. But I would think mentioning that would probably be more relevant to the main Port wine or Vinho do Douro articles then the individual port house pages. Looking at the main Port article, I think the way that they are handling mention of vintages is fine. Agne 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that vinatages can be quite subjective and for the most part should be avoided for particular wines. Exceptions should be made for particularly notable vintages such as historically accepted great vintages (such as 1945). Other exceptions should be made when mentioning the vintage adds to the understanding of the appellation's history such as the 2002 floods in the Rhone valley and the 2003 European heat wave that caused the grapes to ripen excessivly early. Dancingredshoes 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I think the emerging consensus here is that our primary focus would be to avoid listing vintages unless there is something particularly unique and significant about that vintage apart from a critic thinking it is really good. Would others agree on this point? Agne 09:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fleshed out the Vintage portion to include examples about appropriate usages of vintages. The one area that I couldn't find an easy example for was the "Historic Vintages". My first thought was to mention the 1945 Chateau Petrus but that article's vintage area is not in the best of shape and I don't immediately have a reference at hand for the 1945 vintage to include. Any suggestions? Agne 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Examples?

What would be the best way to link "examples" of common mistake? We can't really link to the article because hopefully those mistakes would be soon fixed and not lasting for posterity. I suppose we could link to a diff version but I wouldn't want to give the impression of singling out an editor who may have innocently made that mistake. Another option would be "cut n paste" but that could get long and wordy with some of the examples. Any thoughts? Agne 20:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree in principle...

...so long as this doesn't deviate from existing Wikipedia practice (which it appears not to). One related issue, which might be of concern, are descriptions of the character of a wine (or the terroir of a region)--sometimes claims concerning these are highly speculative in nature. The main thing is to present verifiable fact as fact; consensus as consensus, and the opinion of a small group or individual as such--keeping in mind that the last of these is often not notable. --EngineerScotty

Excellent point. Any wine descriptions should be reliably source but even then we should be mindful of the subjective nature of even our source. Agne 09:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A recurrent question

How to find a complete list of all the articles belonging to the WikiProject Wine? In the project page, when you click on the Category link at the bottom (WikiProject Wine articles) you are taken to a list of talk pages belonging to the project articles, but not to the list of articles themselves. I find it very confusing. Thanks, AVM 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• The WikiProject Wine template can only be placed on a talk page. If you try placing one on the article page directly you'll see what I mean. Hence the set of talk pages. Sorry! Steve.Moulding 04:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• For a complete list of articles covered by the project you can have a look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wine articles by quality and click on the subpages. Also note that project banner templates should only be placed on the talk page of articles so this is why the "Talk:" prefix is listed before all article names - this is by design and the same for all WikiProjects. ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

a few thoughts / queries

awards and recognition

I'm not sure what the purpose is of saying users shouldn't use Wikipedia to decide what to drink. Exactly what purpose would someone interested in wine have in learning about the subject to begin with? I do understand that we should avoid bias, advocacy, subjectivity, uninformative lists, etc.

With that in mind, I propose that it's okay to list truly noteworthy awards. Just like it's okay to list academy award nominations and golden globes for an actor -- just not every talent show they won. So if a wine award is truly important, say placing in the 1976 or 2006 judgment of paris, a 100 point Parker or Wine Spectator, or a major wine award (e.g. sweepstakes winner in SF), that ought to be said in a neutral tone. Just not every county fair bronze medal.

Probably shouldn't list the fact that the President drank something at a state dinner. With the exception of our current president, they drink a lot of wine.

Also, if you can cite an authoritative source to say that a particular wine is highly regarded, considered the premier or standard of its type, etc., I think that's worth saying. it might be fair to say that Chateau d'Yquem is the most widely known Sauternes if that happens to be true. Wikidemo 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In regards to "I'm not sure what the purpose is of saying users shouldn't use Wikipedia to decide what to drink.", I think the purpose is keenly tied into POV and the fact that Wikipedia is not meant to be essentially an advertising medium promoting a particular product or wine. There is a fine line between informing readers about the subject and recommending wine. Readers should expect to be informed but I think its key that we don't hold the expectation that our wine articles will tell you what to drink. I do agree that there should be some consideration of truly noteworthy awards and I think a fair definition of those noteworthy awards would be if the competition or magazine is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Most country/state fairs wouldn't qualify in that regards. Agne 08:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, Wikipedia is not a review site. Rescendent 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also its a bit misleading, if Wine Spectator gave a 1995 Shiraz a gold medal in 1997 is that really relevant in 2007; due to the nature of how wines change over time? or in 2018 etc. It might be notable that the vineyard received 10 gold medals so far from a notable publication; but that's hard to keep up to date information and would rapidly become wrong as well as possibly be misleading as to its current status (e.g. may have produced good wines in the past but doesn't now). Also it would lead to the conclusion that an award confers notability even if for no other reason is the vineyard notable Rescendent 12:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Are all American wineries notable? My opinion is for the most part yes. Most have multiple articles from well regarded sources, they are widely known, their products are widely available regionally to worldwide. Given the goals of this project it would be a useful reference to have an article on most any winery. Is there an official position on what the notability standards are for a winery? Wikidemo 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we haven't had the opportunity to sit down and draw up some notability guidelines. I do think we'll need to give due credence to established notability guidelines like WP:CORP which would probably exclude a fair share of regional wineries. This could be where we have consideration about noteworthy awards play the largest part because those awards would be written up in non-trivial reliable sources and signify some degree of prominence within the industry. As a note on reliable sources, I do think we should make a distinction between a write up of tasting notes in a publication versus a full article about the winery. Considering the millions upon millions of tasting notes out there, I don't think they should stand alone as a reliable gauge of notability. Agne 09:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As a winemaker at a very much non-notable winery, I think you're wrong about American Wineries. There are well over 5,000 wineries in the US. The vast majority of them are small, producing under 1,000 cases a year. Most of their wines are only available at the winery, or perhaps a few local restaurants/shops. If the winery penetrates beyond it's local market (for example, if the winery's in Washington and you can buy its wines in New York), then it's probably notable, but in that case it's most likely going to be covered by WP:CORP anyway. ---- The Bethling^(Talk) 09:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. WP:CORP is a workable threshold for which wineries are likely to have enough verifiable, independent sources on which to base a high-quality article. If a winery can't meet at least one of those criteria, I would be very skeptical of the article. Rossami (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've started a bit on that section. Any thoughts? Agne 22:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Names and disambiguation

People are being sloppy with whether or not to add "winery," "wineries," "vineyard," "cellars," "vineyards," or whatever else to the end of the winery name, or "chateau" at the beginning. That causes conflicts with the people, towns, regions, etc., they're named after. It also means they don't come up consistently in searches. Wikidemo 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Could you give an example of château sloppiness? I'm working on cleaning up existing articles (consistent spellings, use of accents, layout etc.) but let me know what you have in mind. Thanks! Regards Steve.Moulding 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I second this request for example. I would say the WineProject is still in its infancy and so I'm sure there is a wide range of inconsistency across the board. I would encourage you to post some of these observation on the WP:WINE page so that the project members can keep tabs and work on improving this area. Agne 09:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories

As in most of wikipedia categories are used inconsistently. Of all the California winery articles, maybe half are listed with the wine project, most of the rest with project California. Some with neither. It would be nice if someone could go back and add a consistent set of categories to all of them -- is that reasonable? Wikidemo 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Spent yesterday evening doing just that for the 1855 Châteaux, so I agree this is a good point! The categories there were all over the place. They should all be consistent now. If someone feels all of them need another category please add :-) Steve.Moulding 03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wines versus wineries

Subtle difference, but is it more appropriate to make the article about the wine, the vineyard, the winery, or the company that produces it? In most cases I think the last case, even for wineries that are famous mostly for one thing (e.g. Silver Oak or Opus One cabernet, Chandon sparkling wine, etc). Or for companies that maintain two or more wineries (e.g. Ridge) or multiple vineyards. As a reference work, focusing on the winery gives the bigger picture and ties it into larger issues of winemaking, history, business, geography, etc. So it's more encyclopedia-like. Wikidemo 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• For Bordeaux articles (my focus) wiki articles are written Château-down...winery first, then the wines, techniques, awards. I agree, for an encyclopedia focus on the winery first, the wine it produces second. Steve.Moulding 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Appellations

Maybe vintages aren't crucial but appellations are. Very few of the appellation articles have been written, although there are comprehensive lists of them here. Wikidemo 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Wikidemo, you have brought up a lot of excellent points. Thank you! Agne 09:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Irony, much?

"Wikipedia is not a wine guide is part of WikiProject Wine, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to wines" (e.m.) - heh. --Random832(tc) 15:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ha ha, fair enough. How about Wikipedia is (not) a wine guide -- Steve.Moulding 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well actually the template should be better worded because I can see how the casual reader would be confuse. A wineguide is essentially a buying guide with detail reviews, tasting notes and recommendations on what wine to drink. A guide to wine is meant to be an introductory guide to the subject of wine, sort of like "Wine for Dummies" - Wikipedia style. There is a distinct difference between the two but I can see how it can get blurred. Agne 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Master of Wine and Master Sommeliers

From a conversation on the Wine Project talk page. What are some thoughts about the notability of Masters of Wine like Igor Ryjenkov and Master Sommeliers? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Wineries - Part Deux

Conversation originating from thread Articles for Deletion over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine

• So what is the consensus, basically we keep articles ONLY about wineries that have something 'special', are first with something...., that will make most wineries non notable? Is e.g. Rosemount (wine) notable? I think so, but I can only justify it by saying that it is large and well known, not notable by wikipedia standard, maybe it it because I do not know its history, but lets for arguments sake say that there is nothing notable about it, it is not largest in its region, did not do anything first or anything special, BUT it is large and well know, would that make Rosemount non-notable and it should be deleted? If so I guess there is not much point in write random winery articles, I have at least one more article that should be deleted then ..... sigh.
• Reading WP:CORP again, does it mean that if there are magazine articles about a winery it can possibly be considered notable? Is my ref in the Rosemount (wine) article enough to substantiate notability as per WP:CORP? I do not think it meets WP:NOTWINE. anyone? Stefan 01:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Well the "special" note is a vague and intentionally broad standard that allows inclusion of quite a bit. Your Rosemount example would pass the bar with flying colors. At the time, it didn't make a statement for notability but I updated the article with some of the relevant notes that establish notability-2nd highest selling Aussie brand in the US, one time largest family owned Australian winery, joint venture with Mondavi, etc. There is quite a bit that a winery can do to be notable. The bar is a rather low one. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, although the article doesn't make its notability obvious, Rosemount is certainly notable, magazine-wise I remember there being an article about its 20th anniversary in Wine Spectator. Although I don't know much about the winery (other than that I like its GSM :), a winery of that size has the potential of developing into a very thorough article. What I'm afraid of seeing is lots articles on smaller wineries that haven't done anything outside of being a winery notability wise. When it comes down to it, the typical winery is just a small business, no different than a local pizza shop or restaurant. It's known and important to its "local" community, but once you get out side that, it's mostly unknown. Some do get a reputation well beyond they're local area and those are the ones that are most likely able to pass WP:N. I see it as being similar for wines: if a winery has achieved a significant reputation then national/international press is likely to have noticed. --- The Bethling(Talk) 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply Good point (re: Pizza shop comparison). I think it is important to not lose sight that Wikipedia is not intended to be an catalog of every winery that happened to make wine. That would go against WP:NOT and certainly shouldn't be the focus of the wine project. Rather, we are embarking on an encyclopedic endeavor to record to collect knowledge and facts about the world of wine and its history. Of course we are going to have articles on wineries but there needs to be something particular that distinguishes it from your pizza parlor down the block. Obviously larger wineries have the benefit of non-trivial media coverage and international distribution but the smaller ones can also certainly be notable by those particular things that set them apart. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agne, you are quite correct to separate this discussion from the one of prod deletions that I raised, and to move it here. I think you and others have done a good job in writing this essay. I suspect that the essay does need some tweaking because wineries are not like a Pizza shop. Even a small winery in Australia can have its wines on the shelves of a wine shop in London. This of course may not make it notable, but it certainly goes in that direction. The tweaking is probably about the type of sources. The essay recognises that wine may have a lot of sources but a lot of them do not lead to notability. --Bduke 09:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

New section on list of wineries

I've added a new section on inclusions of list of wineries. Thoughts, feedback and criticisms are always welcomed. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This comes in the midst of a debate over deleting lists of wineries. I don't think the section represents consensus on Wikipedia, nor is it a reasonable extension of the Wikipedia preferences against business directories. The claim that lists are spam and advertising is flat-out baseless. Linking to an external list is not a substitute for a list on Wikipedia. In fact, the whole page seems to have a bias against covering wineries. It suggests a standard for wineries that is more stringent than businesses generally. It blames the supposedly undue coverage of wineries on "romanticism" over wine. What is that supposed to mean? If people love something and it is a deep part of culture then of course, it gets more coverage. Pound for pound and dollar for dollar we cover wine more than soybeans. We also cover great architecture more than industrial warehouses. Wineries cannot be compared to local restaurants. Those with distribution are product companies, not service companies. They touch a lot of people. People read about them, extensively. I also think the analogy to football players is faulty. We already have notability standards in WP:CORP, and this essay overall is simply not a useful addition to that. It's fine if someone wants to write an essay about something, so I won't dispute it. But if this essay starts getting cited in efforts to delete articles or dispute notability of wineries, we'll have to do something about that. Wikidemo 05:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Um...essays are referenced in discussions all the time-Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to name the most prominent example. Essays are meant to sum up an argument or contention and is more efficient to cite then repeating the same points over and over again. WP:WINEGUIDE has never been referenced as policy or guideline and in deletion discussions, the relevant Wikipedia policies (such as WP:NOT#DIRECTORY) have always been cited as the policy contention. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then. I'll edit the essay. Wikidemo 07:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That is fine. But do keep in mind that the title is Wikipedia is not a wine guide so hopefully your edits will be constructive and on the subject. However, considering your stated dissatisfaction with the premise of this essay I think your views will probably be counter to the subject matter. You may wish to create an essay based on your differing viewpoint like Wikipedia:Wikipedia can be a wine guide? I will be glad to link your essay in a See also section. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned this section up and also improved it, took out, impertinent and inaccurate stuff, etc. It's not even grammatical or spelled correctly. At this point you are edit warring. I'm questioning whether your new additions represent any kind of consensus. Please see WP:CONSENSUS and don't insist that new material you propose has to be included in the form you propose it. Wikidemo 07:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki, again take a step back and a deep breath. This does not look very flattering. Again I urge you to consider writing an essay on your opposing view. It will be much more productive. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So it's okay if we look at the addition to the essay, but only if we agree with it? Is this essay a walled garden? I see that this essay is mostly your work which, again, is fine. However, as per my original point, I would reject its applicability to the discussions on the notability of winery articles and lists, on grounds of consensus and because it does not have solid basis in Wikipedia policy. Wikidemo 07:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Additions are welcomed if it is inline with the basic premise of the essay-i.e. That Wikipedia is not a Wine guide. Weakening those sentiments and allowing elements of being a wine guide to creep in is counterintuitive that basic premise. Opposing views are not discouraged but I think the most productive application is in an essay espousing those different views with links between the two essays. As for rejecting its applications, that is fine. Its an essay. Its a summary of opinions and arguments that guide editors who agree with those sentiments. Rather then saying "I am making these edits because of this, that, and that" it is easy to link to an essay detailing those views. That is all it is. It not a pillar of stone and it is certainly not something to get upset or edit war over. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to promote from essay to guideline

As the (sometimes contentious) topic of winery notability has come up frequently over the past few months in deletion discussions involving numerous winery articles on the Wikipedia Wine project, it would be useful to have a new guideline serve as an extension to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (known as WP:CORP). This well-established essay serves that purpose. While its title implies that it would be an extension to the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, that isn't the case; it really is an extension of WP:CORP, particularly the section on notability of wineries.

On Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine we find ourselves referencing this document frequently. Therefore, per the proposal instructions on WP:GUIDE, I am proposing that this essay be promoted to guideline. If there are objections, please identify what improvements would need to be made. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• What is it? A deletion guideline? A style guideline? It looks like it's a style guideline, but the title says the opposite. Should it be promoted, how long will it take to AFD, say, Châteauneuf-du-Pape AOC ? or, for the less sophisticaded, prune Merlot of its Major regions ? WP:NOTWINEGUIDE, bingo. NVO (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Technical side note-AOC region articles and grape articles really don't fall into "wine guide" territory which are more tourism and winery related. Wine region and grape articles are more in the purview of an encyclopedia so obvious WP:WINEGUIDE would not be used in such a discussion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm not seeing where you're getting the idea it's a style guideline. The entire document discusses appropriate topics for inclusion in articles, as well as criteria for inclusion of articles on wineries. In that sense, it's a notability guideline. The title could be changed, I guess. The purpose of this discussion is not to make AfDs quicker (and wouldn't apply to the examples you mentioned), but to solicit suggestions for what it would take to promote this document to a guideline. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Simple: the text starts with "how to" (or no to), hence it's a take at style guideline. I don't get the idea of writing another notability guideline (especially on business-related topics), GNG is sufficient. Throw the notability discourse away, it's a brief how-to. NVO (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• A few quick thoughts, with possibly more to come:

1. I assume you are only talking about promoting the section on notability, as the essay as a whole is advice on how to write a good article. Is this correct?
2. The essay seems to contradict itself slightly: Since there is an abundance of "non-trivial and reliable published works" in the world of wine, this requirement could be "technically" fulfilled by nearly every winery. vs. There is the difference between being the subject of an article or profile in Wine Spectator and being mentioned in a wine review or wine region overview.

   The second point seems perfectly valid and inline with policy - something has to be the subject of the coverage, not just part of a list. However, the first part is implying that merely being listed is technically enough. Perhaps this is just a question of better wording.

3. You might be better served by creating a "few bullet" points based on this essay rather than trying to promote the whole section. Something like:

“ Nearly all wineries receive some coverage in reliable sources, however for a winery to be notable it must be the primary subject of coverage. Some good indications that such coverage is likely to exist include:

• Representing a major innovation or being the primary example of a genre in a given region
• Being historical significant
• Winning a major award
• Being named as a top wine by a major critic

”

of course substituting my crude examples with more Wine Project consensus views. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the detailed answers. I was actually referring to the entire document, as the whole thing deals with appropriate topics for inclusion. The topic of winery notability, however, has come up frequently enough that it spurred me to propose this essay for promotion. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Oppose as contrary to the general spirit of notability at Wikipedia. This amounts to saying that the winery most be not merely notable, but famous. I understand the problem would be better solved by emphasising the need for the coverage to be actually substantial. DGG (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it says that a winery should be encyclopedic. Whereas a wineguide is intended to cover every entity that makes wine, an encyclopedia covers the topics that has some encyclopedic relevance to the world of wine as evidence by notable and non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. While Chateau Margaux is certainly more famous than say Mayacamas Vineyards-the later merits just as much inclusion in an encyclopedia despite not being "famous". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As the primarily author of this essay, I don't think this is ready to be a guideline in its current form. It is badly in need for some tidying and to be brought up to date with current consensus opinion on WP:CORP and notability in general. Even among the Wine Project members, its use and broader scope has changed since this was first written. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• lack of focus either it's a notability guideline or it's a style guideline. Seeing the comments here, I very strongly advice breaking this page in two different pages, one for style and one for notability. Otherwise, you will keep finding opposition to any promotion. Also, the focus of each page will be much more clearer and it will be easier to finish polishing them. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• • As the original proponent, I agree. I have rearranged and rewritten the article to take into account the comments above. It now consists of two sections that can be cleanly split. The "Notability of wineries" section can now be its own article. I would appreciate if subsequent comments would focus on just that section. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You should get the part that talks about style and split right now into a separate proposal for a MOS page. Otherwise you won't be able to get people to focus in the notability part. For the notability part, I suppose that you already looked at WP:CORP, WP:PROF and WP:BAND. You need a clear set of short criteria that people can review quickly when they are discussing a wine-related article at an AfD discussion. Don't say "*being mentioned in X does confer notability, and being mentioned in Y doesn't". Say "things that confer notability: *being mentioned in X (see 'magazine articles')" * appearing at Z (see 'wine encyclopedias'", and make a separate section where you discuss the types of sources in as much detail as needed. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Excellent points, thanks. I consider this discussion closed for now. I'll re-propose after I have things in better shape. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have extracted the notability content from this article, significantly expanded it, and posted it at Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) (shortcut WP:WINETOPIC). Others have already weighed in with comments and improvements. Feel free to join in. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)