Talk:Merlot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Wine (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of wines, grapes, winemaking and wine-producing regions on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
 

This article has comments here.


Can we split this page? Justinc 14:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Seems like a reasonable idea. I just created Merlot (disambiguation) with a link from here and moved the online community info to a stub name Merlot online community. If someone wants to create a article about the XML editor it should be linked from the disambig page. -- Rick Block 18:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I editted the f word at the end of that page since, I know it was not totally necessary to spell it out.

Despite the fact that you "know" it was "not totally necessary", there is a rather strong majority believing that even graphic sexual content should not be censored (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Oral sex (no pictures) for one of several recent discussions on this). In this case, I think it is even more obvious. The movie character said "fucking" and not "f------", period. If the quote should be there (which, on the other hand, might be discussed, albeit on entirely different grounds) it should read as it was actually spoken. Changing it could be seen as falsification.

-- I agree. Don't censor what was actually spoken.

Sideways[edit]

Is it true that Merlot sales dropped, quite signifigantly after sideways came out? maybe something could be added about this.--Richy 13:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added links to the research that seems to have sparked this debate (if it's a debate) and one of the "anecdotal reports" that resulted. -- Darthsco 20:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, the NPR report about the movie's effects came out in 2004, but the Nelson report cited is from 2005. --24.180.25.249 19:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Connoisseur stuff"[edit]

I think there might be some way of salvaging it -- easiest way is to reference tasting notes. Anyone got a source for a general merlot profile? I know Robert Parker's website requires registration, but surely there's another? Haikupoet 04:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Needed: A writer's touch[edit]

I've been working on this article and adding facts/references but prose is not my strongest suit. If anyone out there is willing to string this together into more compelling prose that will be great. Agne 14:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Verhonda on the Verge"[edit]

Someone keeps adding a trivia fact related to the play "Verhonda on the Verge" even though, as far as I can tell, this play does not exist. I'm removing it again, but if you want to include it please explain yourself. Korny O'Near 14:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

I have never heard the mer-LOH pronunciation in England, so have highlighted that this is the American pronunciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.117.34 (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I hear mer-LOH more often than not in the UK - amongst casual drinkers it's far more common than the French pronunciation. I'm not sure that one person's experience really justifies splitting the pronunciation into British/American versions. I'm also pretty sure there are Americans who say MERL-oh. So..not sure how to change it, but I think it needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbeater (talkcontribs) 23:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Also "mare-low" is a shit way of denoting the pronunciation, because that would depend entirely on whether it means that's the pronunciation in a rhotic or a non-rhotic dialect.--122.61.8.81 (talk)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In Ticino Region exist white Merlot and it is white. For example you can see one of those type of merlot at http://www.schuler.ch/weisswein/schweiz/kanton-tessin/cagi-2009-bucaneve-bianco-di-merlot-031270081.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.190.5 (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Red?[edit]

What is red about the merlot grape? Is it not true that red wines are mainly produced through blue grapes? I e the wine is red, the grape is not?'--Paracel63 (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Merlot is considered a red grape because it makes mainly red wine. Though the juice is colorless and it can make white wine but usually "White Merlot" is actually a blush wine since some color gets leached from the skins even with very careful handling. Technically you can describe the actual skin color of the grapes as blue (or even blue-black) but that is usually just semantics since it is more about the color of the wine than the grape itself. AgneCheese/Wine 00:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wine photos[edit]

I am going to revert once more the deletion of free-use wine photos in this article. I believe the photos are valid use of illustration and, frankly, am somewhat offended at the claim that they are advertisements. Beyond the very obvious fact that these are photos from many different wineries, from many different regions, owned by many different owners, imported/distributed by many different entities, sold by many different retailers/restaurants, etc (making the advertisement claim laughable), I would like to think that even a cursory look at my user history (such as my work on WP:WINEGUIDE) would showcase that I'm probably one of the most vigilante anti-spam wine editors on the project.
My objective is to have illustrated and informative articles and, as a wine educator, I take advantage of my ability to snap free-use photos of many different wines from the trade tastings I get to go to and classes I conduct. I have zero interest in advertizing for any winery, receive zero compensation or even recognition, and (most importantly) I never let my own personal opinion of the quality the wines influence whether or not I feel the image has information value. Believe me, there are several photos of wines that I would never drink but I'll use an illustration of an absolutely atrociously bad wine just as willingly as I will for a wine I'll actually buy all the same if it serves some benefit to the article.
While I have absolutely no qualms, ever, about the photos being replaced by better images (whether they be better quality since my iPhone photo skills are admittedly not the best or some other free-use image that could better illustrate the topic such as a free-use vineyard or winemaking image), I do object to the wholesale deletion of valid, free use photos that illustrates (among other things) A.) The appearance of the wine (red Merlot and White Merlot look quite different) B.) The regions the wine is being produced (illustrates the global significance of the grape and, potentially, the region) C.) The importance or prominence of the wine in how it is labeled (certain international varieties, such as Merlot, have such universal recognition that the grape variety is often printed in larger font then the region and sometimes even the winery name).
So, again, feel free to replace with something better but deletion for the sake of deletion is pointless while bad faith and unfounded claims are reckless. AgneCheese/Wine 02:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I will add that the one photo I am slightly uncomfortable with is the File:Beringer_White_Merlot.jpg pic since, unlike the others, it doesn't focus on the wine in the glass. I still feel there is immense informational value in having an illustration of the color of "white" Merlot and you can see the color through the bottle. It's not ideal though and, someday, I would like to get a free-use photo that is focusing on the wine in the glass. Again, the charge of "advertisement" is laughable and I sincerely doubt Beringer is seeing any uptick in White Merlot sales due to this picture. But since this pic is solely of the bottle, without the wine in glass, I would concede if this one is removed even though it loses an illustration. AgneCheese/Wine 02:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I came here because of your comment at WP Wine. I disagree with you here and I think that it was necessary first to gain consensus and then to revert, taking in consideration serious concerns. This issue is much wider than Merlot so it might be a good idea to have centralized discussion for all wine grape varieties. The point is simple. There are thousands of brands of wines and presenting a picture of one of them might be seen as giving undue weight to one brand of wine and maybe even an advertising. As far as I could see, nobody accused you for taking money for this, so there is no need for you to take this personally. Photo of particular brand of wine can have its place in more specific article, i.e. about some winery or some list. It is much more illustrative to present a map of the region or the picture of its vineyards then picture of bottle of specific brand of wine.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that is a tenuous stretch to think these images provide any advertising benefit. There are hundreds of thousands of different wines in the world, with many of them limited geographically to where they are found (part of the reason we tend to take a strict stance on WP:WINERY notability). What wine I find up in the Pacific Northwest to snap a picture of may never be seen by a reader in the UK, Australia, India or even the rest of the United States at any restaurant or retail shop. Maybe if the articles were covered in pictures from the same large, massive global brands like Yellow Tail or Gallo, we could have an argument. But I have been very deliberate in being indiscriminate and snapping pictures from a wide range of different random, mostly small, wineries so even if there is the teensiest of advertising benefit, it is highly marginalized and spread out over hundreds of different wineries. In this article, the only picture of potentially a global brand is the Beringer White Merlot (an image I already had some reservation about). If it comes down to it where that image is the most troublesome then we can probably compromise and I can keep an eye open for another free-use White Merlot image. AgneCheese/Wine 17:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that the photo of bottle of wine with visible label does provide an advertaising benefit, whether they are limited geographically or not. The less they are limited geographically, the more beneficial photo is. My remarks do not "indicate that there should be a complete ban on any picture on any product where you can identify the producer" because I clearly stated "Photo of particular brand of wine can have its place in more specific article, i.e. about some winery or some list". WP:UNDUE "applies not only to article text, but to images.... as well." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
While thought has to be given to how wine is illustrated using photos where labels are visible, saying that any identifiable label (even when it is photographed together with a wine glass or something else, to make the overall composition pass as free) is "advertising" is a bit ridiculous. Rather than saying that it could give WP:UNDUE weight to some producer or brand, this claim goes much wider than just wine articles, and seems to indicate that there should be a complete ban on any picture on any product where you can identify the producer. That seems a bit strange too me. As it happens, advertising tends to not just consist of a neutral picture of an object, so saying that any picture where a product and the name of the producer can be identified is "advertising" is not a very serious claim in my view. I agree with the idea for a centralised policy (and then not just for wine-related articles), but I definitely don't think that Agne27 was wrong to revert. The user who deleted the picture did not refer to any Wikipedia policy in the edit summary, and has not written here or at Agne27's talk page. Disallowing this type of picture would be to change the standard practice that has been in use for quite a number of years, and I think that the "burden of proof" rests with whomever wishes to do that change. If there already exists a Wikipedia policy that clearly forbids this type of images that I wasn't aware of, I will of course change my mind. So where should be have this discussion? (And, by the way, I'm personally much more fond of pictures of vineyards and grapes than of bottles/labels/glasses, but we have to work with what's available.) Tomas e (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
So, at least my issue isn't "strange" or "ludicrous" to everyone. Phew. - NewTestLeper79 talk 16:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tomas that pictures of vineyards within wine regions, the grapes themselves and winemaking practices are much more ideal and, as I noted above, I would never object to any editor replacing images with better ones. I have no WP:OWNership issues over these images because this is a team effort to build the best articles we can. I do object to wholesale deletion of valid images without any effort to replace them since this ends up diminishing the quality and informative value of the article rather than improve it. We are limited by what WP:FREEIMAGE are available and while I have certainly contributed many free use winemaking (such as those on the malolactic fermentation article) and vineyard photos, it is far easier to take free-use pictures of the wines themselves. AgneCheese/Wine 17:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Keeping photos that promote wineries, intentionally or not, because there aren't free-use alternatives doesn't hold much water. Even free-use ones would still promote wineries anyway. If there's nothing wrong with this practice, I'll be uploading photos of my favourite wines shortly. - NewTestLeper79 talk 17:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
By your logic, any photo of anything is promoting something. You can say that our photos of the Grand Canyon are promoting tourism to Arizona or our photos of specific works in articles like Literature, Poetry, Film, etc are "advertising" for various books and movies. There is no limit to the skeptical eye we can cast on the "advertising" benefit of anything which would leave us with very little left to work with. We are a visual medium and illustrations can provide a benefit to enhancing the informative value of our articles. I think, in the end, we should all judge images by what value they bring versus taking a hyper cynical approach to what hypothetical benefit some obscure small winery might get from a random picture on a Wikipedia article. Believe me, if we had a winery making a deliberate intent to spam our articles with numerous images of their particular wines, I'll be the first with the machete hacking them down. But I do think the random, indiscriminate and varied approach is the most useful and unbiased way to help us illustrate our articles with free-use images.
Though, yes, you are certainly welcome to upload more free-use photos that can be of benefit to the project and help illustrate our articles. (And if you happen to have one of a Bonamico wine, that would be very awesome) Though you don't need to interject POV and limit yourself to just your favorite wines. Even if you are at a restaurant and absolutely hate the wine you're drinking, if it is one of the many articles at Category:Wine grape varieties that don't have pictures (some of which are also cross-categorized at Category:Wine articles needing photos), then snap away. We could use the help. AgneCheese/Wine 19:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Does the Grand Canyon have "Visit Arizona" painted on it? I don't see the comparison. - NewTestLeper79 talk 21:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't need to have anything painted on it to meet your criteria of promotion, "intentionally or not". The mere display of an image can be enough to trigger a random reader's subconscion and thus act as advertisement. You need to consider the context - otherwise the article on Merlot itself serves as advertisement. You just found a hole in the cheese.--Nwinther (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The Grand Canyon doesn't have a brand name slapped on it, which is the point you missed. - NewTestLeper79 talk 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Exactly.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The Grand Canyon is a brand name--a universally recognized one that numerous entities (including the US Federal Government) profit off of due to tourism. It's not beyond reason to surmise that more people who visit the Wikipedia article on the Grand Canyon and look at the pictures of the Grand Canyon end up visiting the Grand Canyon and putting money in the pockets of all the related businesses and entities than we have people who are looking up Merlot end up eventually seeing (much less buying) the random and obscure wines with images on this page. IF we want to talk about advertising, the Grand Canyon is certainly getting a hell of a lot more bang for the (metaphorical) buck. But, you know, frankly I don't think it is worth fretting about all those folks making money off of tourists visiting the Grand Canyon after reading the article and seeing those pictures because the educational and informative value of those images outweigh the "dangers" of Wikipedia inadvertently advertising for tourism to the Grand Canyon. I think we need to be careful to avoid getting so caught up in worrying about individual trees (such as the hypothetical harms of something inadvertently advertising) that we miss the forest that we are here to build an encyclopedia. AgneCheese/Wine 01:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
We're getting a bit silly now. - NewTestLeper79 talk 10:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@Agne27, The Grand Canyon is universally recognized name, just like Merlot. The main problem here is that you did not present a picture of Grand Canyon (a map of the region or the picture of its vineyards). You presented a picture of Grand Canyon together with bilboard which says "Papilon offers helicopter the Grand Canyon tours, call (888) 635-7272 to book it" (a bottle of wine with visible brand). The position of editors who do not share your opinion is clearly presented. You failed to gain consensus here. If you insist on your position you can proceed with RfC or some other DR method. Any further discussion seems pointless. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Failed to get consensus? For what? The wholesale deletion of valid images from an article? In the WP:BRD scale, we are in the "discussion" phase after NewTestLeper79 was bold and made a change which was reverted. The onus of consensus is on him for his wholesale deletion (note that there has been no objection to replacing with better images) with so far only you of the other participants in this discussion showing support for the wholesale deletion. And I will add that neither of you have been able to demonstrate why these images aren't valid or serve an informative purpose outside of concern about a wholly hypothetical advertising benefit that you feel that some small random, obscure winery may/possibly/kinda/sorta/whatif/wellidunno get. Oh and I fail to see where on any of the images there is a phone number/website link/address/where to buy type information that would show we are actually promoting anything like your Papilon example. Labels change, wine names change and if your whole contention is that the mere presence of seeing any type of item (even if it is wholely obscure and random) as images in an article will create some insatiable subconscious desire for readers to hunt down these items to purchase then you may need to spend many hours vanquishing the "advertising" images from our numerous articles on Films, Literature and Art (many of which contain images that are FAR less obscure than small, random wines). AgneCheese/Wine 12:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

And again, Antidiskriminator, if you have access or find any Free-Use images of maps or Merlot vineyards in the regions that can be used in this article then, by all means, upload them and add them to the article. As long as they are relevant to the article and make sense within the section, go for it! If there are better free-use images that can enhance the educational and informative value of the article, you will find no objection from me and I doubt any other editor. The only objection is to wholesale deletion---replacement and article improvement is wholeheartedly and ardently welcomed. AgneCheese/Wine 12:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • "Wholesale deletion"? No. Less than half of images were deleted.
  • Was there anything particularly educational or informative in deleted images? No.
  • Is there consensus to keep disputed images in the article? No. On wikipedia text of the article is based on consensus.
I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my position, and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia long enough to notice the signs of someone futilely trying to defend their stance (bringing up examples of other articles around the site, for one, saying "if they can do it, why can't I?"). It's my opinion that you have a connection to all of the wines you've uploaded photographs of. If a "burden of proof" exists towards me, I return it with interest. And, let it be said, I'm not in favour of replacing the photographs with free-use ones depicting labels of wines for the reason I gave above. Future photograph removals will be summarised with reference to WP:NOTADVERTISING to assist in your understanding. - NewTestLeper79 talk 23:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion--Deletion for the sake of deletion without any effort made to replace the images with better free-use alternatives. This is the whole crux of the issue. My entire focus (and 8+ yrs of Wiki service) is making Wikipedia's wine articles the most well developed and informative they can be. As I've repeatedly said I have zero qualms about the images being replaced. I am not wedded to these exact images. I am wedded to the goal of having illustrated articles and after years of searching and scrimping for free-use images to help illustrate our wine articles, I finally decided to take matters into my own hand by snapping photos of wines I've tried with my iPhone.
My connection to these wines? I've tasted them. All of them. Some I've purchased. Some I got to try at trade events. Some I've had at friend's homes. Some I've had at tastings at my wine locker. Some I've had at the wineries (as a regular tourist). Some I've had at restaurants. Some I've had in wine classes I taught. Some I've had at wine classes and wine seminars I've attended. Some I've liked, some I've hated, some were just meh but in no way was I going to let my own personal POV influence my editing. I took pictures of them all. No winery, restaurant, distributor, retailer or anyone ever asked me to take these pictures (and I certainly have never received any sort of compensation). In fact, I'm willing to bet 99.999% of the wineries don't even know pictures of their wine were ever taken. I made the decision to be indiscriminate and random, getting a wide assortment of images and trying my best to find wines from regions that were under-represented on Wikipedia. The objective is not to endorse or sell wine. The objective is to illustrate and inform.
As noted above, and cut and paste here, there is educational value in these images. A.) The appearance of the wine (red Merlot and White Merlot look quite different) B.) The regions the wine is being produced (illustrates the global significance of the grape and, potentially, the region) C.) The importance or prominence of the wine in how it is labeled (certain international varieties, such as Merlot, have such universal recognition that the grape variety is often printed in larger font then the region and sometimes even the winery name)
But, again, the objective is to illustrate and inform and to make the most well developed and informative wine articles we can. This is a team effort and I very, very enthusiastically welcome any assistance in working towards this objective. You can accomplish your agenda very easily and vanquish these images that trouble you so dearly. Just replace them with something better. Help Us Build an Encyclopedia. Roll up your sleeves and get in the trenches to see where we come from and what it is like to search for viable and relevant free-use images that can be used in our articles.
And you'll win! You can walk away knowing you won this "internet squabble". Completely, hands down. You da Man! But, yeah, I'll win too because, hopefully, we'll end up with a better article and, in the end, Wikipedia will win. AgneCheese/Wine 23:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The photographs don't need to be replaced. Let's start there again. - NewTestLeper79 talk 15:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Then I'm fine with the status quo and leaving the article as is. It's informative and illustrated. Though if you change your mind and find some of the images troublesome then, again, you can still win and have your way by finding something better that will still leave the article informative and illustrated. You'll never find an objection to that and can add your "internet victory" notches to your belt. But wholesale deletion just for the sake of deletion that leaves large swathes of unillustrated sections which lessens the quality of the article will be objected to. AgneCheese/Wine 15:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Help Us Build an Encyclopedia[edit]

Oddly, after stating that the photos don't need to be replaced, Dudesleeper/NewTestLeeper went ahead and did the wholesale deletion, lessening the quality of the article by gutting valid images and leaving large swathes of the section unillustrated. This, after receiving not only concession but also encouragement that he can very easily achieve his personal agenda and have his way in removing images he doesn't like, just don't leave the article gutted and unillustrated. That's it. In everything else, you win. Remove the pics you don't like, just replace them with something that either maintain that status quo quality level of the article, with all sections relevantly illustrated with informative pics, or maybe even improved with better quality free-use pics. They don't have to show pictures of wine, they just need to be relevant.
So either the pics are unoffensive and don't need to be replace or Dudesleeper/NewTestLeeper doesn't need to Help Us Build an Encyclopedia. Instead, I suppose, he feels that he is entitle, without consensus, to do wholesale deletion, lessening the development and quality, without any effort to either maintain or improve the quality of the article. If that is the case, that is unfortunate and objectionable. We have only had 5 participates in this discussion, with only one other editor endorsing his wholesale deletion, but if he is not content to wait for consensus to develop here, he can open up an RfC to seek his desire change. AgneCheese/Wine 18:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You're building your own grave, so I don't need to add much. Might you point me in the direction of some text that shows consensus is needed to remove advertising? Merci. - NewTestLeper79 talk 19:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has been a grave for my free-time and social life for many years now so veiled threats from anonymous usernames doesn't phase me, especially now that your actions are starting to strongly hint at trolling. You have not shown that these images are advertising (merely stating yours and one single other user's personal opinion). When other editors have noted that there are value in these images and that your personal opinion could be extended towards determining that images of anything are advertising, you have dismissed them rather than answer those points.
And despite this... you have been given ample opportunity, and even encouragement, to get everything you want (assuming good faith that what you want is in line with building an encyclopedia). You can achieve your personal agenda, vanquish these images that you don't like, and know that you won. The request is simply that you don't gut the article with wholesale deletion, that you Help Us Build an Encyclopedia and replace the images with free-use images that you feel are better. That's it. As long as they're relevant to the topic of Merlot and are free-use, I don't care and I doubt any other editor would. Despite your ludicrous claims of advertising, I could care less if the current images stay in the article (guess I make a pretty shitty ad girl). My only care is that we have illustrated and informative articles and I will object to wholesale deletion that tear down, rather than build up, the encyclopedia. You are the one that cares about these particular images so the fact that you have been given many opportunities to achieve your personal agenda in ways that don't hurt the project, yet have refuse to consider it, is starting to make the assumption of good faith for your actions here suspect. AgneCheese/Wine 17:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see an answer to my question in all of that. - NewTestLeper79 talk 20:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I should be pointing to WP:DONTFEED but the mother in me doesn't want to give up on you as a lost cause despite the growing evidence. I could also point to WP:NOTADVERTISING but you've already demonstrated that you haven't even read that page (much less Wikipedia:Spam) and instead is just going to run (perhaps in some Carbrini Sportswear) with whatever your own personal interpretation of what are advertisements (regardless of any challenges to your logic). But until the enactment of your personal interpretations get slotted into the list of decisions not subject to consensus of editors, I kindly request that you still work with the community to build consensus--especially for actions that can significantly and negatively impact our articles.
But still.... even if you DON'T WANT to build consensus, even if you don't want to work with other editors to sway them to your POV but just want the satisfaction of having your way, for the sake of peace and compromise, I've been willing to capitulate to your agenda and let you win. I have and I will continue to encourage you to replace the photos with something you think is better. It might be an over extension of good faith but I still want to hope that deep down if you care enough to come to this talk page over the course of several days to argue that maybe, just maybe, you might care enough to want to Help Us Build an Encyclopedia and roll up your sleeves to pitch in. AgneCheese/Wine 23:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I've built a fair portion of the encyclopedia, as the relevant page in my profile illustrates; I don't have any intention of adding to wine articles — just removing the blatant "buy this wine"-ness of it all. I'll start the tiresome RfC process tomorrow, because the broken-record replies I'm receiving here aren't exactly expanding my horizons. - NewTestLeper79 talk 00:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
My apologies if working with other editors to help build an encyclopedia is tiresome. You seem quite willing to add your personal agenda and WP:IDONTLIKE it enforcement to this article so it seemed fair to extend good faith that you would be willing to do that is a constructive fashion rather than just destructive, drive by wholesale deletion. Despite your bad faith "buy this wine" assumptions, if working on the RfC becomes tiresome as well (or doesn't go according to your agenda) know that the same, repetitive capitulation to your whim will always be an avenue for you. You will always be able to win and get everything you want. You can remove every single image from this page or any other wine page, just simply replace them with something (hopefully) better that is relevant and free-use. That's it. Always has been and always will. As long as we are building an encyclopedia and keeping our articles informative and illustrated, I don't care. While you are obsessed with images and enforcing your agenda, I will continue working on building the encyclopedia. AgneCheese/Wine 00:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that's the 23rd reference to winning. Charlie Sheen might get in touch at this rate. I didn't realise it was a competition. And your questioning my integrity - by putting words in mouth - means I'll have to point you in the direction of the no personal attacks policy. Below is where you'll give an example of where I did it earlier. - NewTestLeper79 talk 18:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
As a women dealing with the male dominated internet, you play to the norm. When you reach a point like I have where you're not emotionally invested in the "small things" (like keeping these exact pictures in the article--despite your accusations of advertizing), you let the other side know its okay for them to "win". Usually this paves the way for them being more receptive with both sides reaching a compromising since it minimizes any ego bruising. It also allows me to focus on what is more important--the integrity of the project and the work that has gone into getting our articles developed to where they are informative and illustrated. If you don't follow the norm of needing to "win" each disagreement and to keep your ego in tact by pounding your opponent into capitulation to your whims then kudos to you, sincerely. The internet would certainly be a less hostile place if we had more of your kind. AgneCheese/Wine 02:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agne27, while I'm very grateful for all the good work you've done in this area, I agree with the deletion of the photos and have reverted your reinstatement. Let me address Tomas e's comment first: something doesn't have to be forbidden forbidden forbidden to be excluded. There is, likewise, no mandate that requires that we insert photos of wine bottles and glasses. I was struck by the images in that they paid way too much attention to a specific product by a specific winery, more than the wine. That these images illustrate the color, for instance--well, that's hard to get across on a computer screen anyway, and it depends on the lighting when the photo was taken, etc. Merlot is dark blue, reddish, whatever--it's not that important. In addition, I can't say that I'm very impressed by the quality of the photographs; they are a bit pedestrian, like my own photos of beers (sorry). Now, I'll not say it's advertising, or intended as advertising, but I will say that they stress the producer over the product; the focus of these sections is on areas, not on individual wineries, and to say that we need them to illustrate that wine comes from those places is a stretch. We don't need any photos to illustrate such a thing, and if we want them, they should be (as Tomas said) of vineyards, for instance. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
So you don't believe they're advertizing yet are removing them because .... ? Again, I have absolutely ZERO issue with the images being replaced with free-use vineyard pictures or anything else (as long as they're relevant to the topic of Merlot). They are only here because these are the best free-use images that we have ATM. I would LOVE to have better images. But wholesale deletion that leaves this article less developed and less illustrated (especially when there is no policy against these images) is objectionable. Now this article has just a massive wall of unillustrated space that is far less appealing or serviceable to our readers. I will not quickly revert you and give you and Dudesleeper some time to try and fix the damage to the article with finding some replacement images but we can not leave the article in this state---especially when the only reason it is in this state is because of personal opinions and not any valid policy reason. We are here for the readers and our goal should always be striving to make our articles betters. It is easy to envision this article being better without these images but the current abysmal unillustrated state is not it. Help us reach that better state. AgneCheese/Wine 16:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
And, yes, I know they are of pedestrian quality. You don't have to apologize :) I'm not a professional photographer by any stretch of the means and these are just iPhone photos shot at wine tastings and such (sometimes after a few tastes :P) But especially since we weren't advertising anything, having pristine quality wasn't a priority and the expectation was always that hopefully better images will come along. But in addition to showing color, there was also informative value in showing the wine region on the label and that this grape has become prominent enough to be featured (often bigger than the wine region and sometimes in bigger font than even the winery). The actual winery itself is irrelevant. It would probably look ridiculous but, heck, I wouldn't care if we Photoshopped the images with a box over the winery name. AgneCheese/Wine 16:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I removed them because of the reasons I gave. a. they don't "illustrate" that Merlot comes from those places b. they're not high quality c. they focus way too much attention on the particular winery that made them. Articles don't have to have illustrations to be decent or good (or even Good) articles. Showing a bottle of wine with a certain label on it tells the reader nothing. Properly verified text does: I've visited wineries in the Snake River Valley in Idaho, and had a great time, and drank Merlot, but it doesn't show up in our article. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
A.) How does a wine with the label MERLOT and Wine Region not show that it comes from those regions? It also shows that the grape is popular enough and well regarded enough to be features from those region. There is a reason why we don't see many varietally labeled Bonda (grape) wines. Also, to some degree it is more valid than a generic vineyard pic since outside of trained ampelographers most people can't recognize a Merlot vine to know that it is a Merlot vineyard. B.) I agree with the quality but that is a personal opinion and while I wholeheartedly welcome better quality pics, there is no minimum requirement for pics to be of professional quality in order to be used. C.) Again, personal opinion. For me the focus is on the wine and the wine region. The winery is irrelevant. D.) I would have no objection to a picture of a Snake River AVA Merlot. That would show the growing prominence of that wine region and its embracing of international varieties like Merlot. Ideally, it would be nice to have more reference text about Idaho Merlot to go with the pic. AgneCheese/Wine 17:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I agree that just showing a bottle of wine is not helpful, which is why I'm not a fan of the Beringer White Merlot pic (though the fact that it was a clear bottle is somewhat redeeming). That is why I always make it a focus to show the wine with the bottle as a background prop to help properly identify it (i.e. this is a Merlot from a specific wine regions). That way the reader can be sure that what they are looking at is relevant and they can place the context clues (color of the wine, cooler climate--potentially lighter, potentially more reddish hues versus warmer climate--potentially deeper, more bluish hues due to potentially more riper/over ripe grapes). AgneCheese/Wine 17:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Might we start removing them from the plethora of other varietal articles (including the one I uploaded in Chardonnay in an act of irony)? That'd be great. - NewTestLeper79 talk 17:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you really feel compelled to be WP:POINTy? AgneCheese/Wine 17:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Baby with the bathwater?[edit]

Food and wine pairing witth Lalande-Pomerol.jpg

Also, can you explain how you feel images like this focus more on the winery rather than the intent--showing how lighter Merlot from Old World wine regions like Lalande-Pomerol are often used for food pairing? Can people even make out the winery name without enlarging the pic? Yet this is objectionable? AgneCheese/Wine 17:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't say anything about that photo without being offensive. - NewTestLeper79 talk 17:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That it is unfortunate if that is the case. I would like to know Drmies thoughts because, based on his reasoning above, this picture should be acceptable. However, as it usually the case with wholesale deletion--editorial discretion gets thrown out the window. If you are going to use Drmies partial agreement with you (even though he didn't agree with your POV that this is advertisement) to go on a WP:POINTy deletion spree through wine articles then it would be nice to get some clarity on what IS and isn't acceptable. AgneCheese/Wine 17:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to explain that a plate of partially eaten food isn't acceptable? Please stop being defensive; you aren't helping your stance. - NewTestLeper79 talk 18:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Some areas that could particularly use help[edit]

I just finished an updated expansion of the article (about 26,000 bytes of prose) with info from Wine Grapes. This necessitated splintering off some of the wine regions into their own sections. We now have a pretty significant wall of text in the European wine sections from Italy, Spain/Portugal, Central Europe and Rest of Europe. Any help with illustrating those sections with free-use images will be greatly appreciated. AgneCheese/Wine 04:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)