Talk:Côte-Rôtie AOC

Wine grower list

Moving this here per WP:WINEGUIDE Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The main winegrowers :'

Domaine Gilles Barge
Domaine Billon
Domaine Bonnefond
Domaine de Bonserine
Domaine Burgaud
Domaine Champet
Domaine Chapoutier
Domaine Clusel-Roch
Domaine Cuilleron
Domaine Daubree
Domaine Delas
Domaine Drevon
Domaine Duclaux - www.coterotie-duclaux.com
Domaine Pichat
Domaine Pierre Gaillard
Domaine Gangloff
Domaine Garon
Domaine Gérin
Domaine Guigal
Domaine Jamet
Domaine Jasmin
Domaine du Monteillet
Domaine Niero
Domaine Ogier
Domaine Otheguy
Domaine Rostaing
Domaine Vernay Daniel et Roland
Domaine Vernay Georges
Gérard Villano
Domaine François Villard

Syrah origins

The Syrah page seems to contradict the Probus origin hypothesis. Incidentally, it also seems to contradict the name. The amateur linguist in me finds Syrah originating from Syracusae somewhat more plausible than it originating from Shiraz Persia, but what do I know? 75.138.184.254 (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Syrah page just hasn't been cleaned up and re-written. Something that will happen eventually. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 12:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what is meant here: The origins of the Côte-Rôtie most famous planting-Syrah, is confirmed to be indigenous to the Rhone valley. Syrah has been genetically proven to be a cross between Mondeuse Blanche and Dureza. but it doesn't quite sound very English. And can we have a source?--Kudpung (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Source provided and added.--Kudpung (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

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 careful 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) 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Style

The article is written in GF but still contains many turns of phrase that are not strictly encyclopedic, or are not of a sufficiently formal English. many claims also need to be sourced. I'll try to get back to this article and copyedit it later, but if anyone else can do this, please go ahead.--User:Kudpung (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not hitherto had anything to do with this article, but having seen the tag I have checked the entire article against the reference works on my shelves (which I fear are all too amply stocked with books about wine) and I cannot see that it is too informally written or badly referenced. If Kudpung would like to point out which sentences give him or her concern, I shall be happy to check them against Jancis Robinson, Hugh Johnson, and if necessary Robert Parker, et al, and make any necessary emendations. Otherwise I suggest removing the tags in the not too distant future. - Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at my user page will determine my gender - and also my interest in Rhone wines ;) I was't - or didn't intend - to criticise the cited sources. What I thought I was pointing out was that there are places that are unsourced and could be construed by a critical editor as being WP:POV or WP:OR. The claims are almost certainly made in GF and are probably not intentionally left unsourced, but WP:CITE is not a policy that is clear to everyone, thus tin order to err on the side of caution I tend to insist upon it. Feel free to add citations and/or remove the templates. I won't get involved in an edit war either way. At the risk of disfiguring the article, I could put inline cn tags in the relevant places if this would help.--Kudpung (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Folks, Côte-Rôtie is in northern Rhône, so the definite source to use would of course be the brick-sized The Wines of the Northern Rhône by John Livingstone-Learmonth, at least where more detail is needed than good ol' all-round Oxford Companion. Tomas e (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Update: The article was a 100% sourced when I rewrote it a couple years back. It looks like not much has been added but, instead, some of the information was broken up and moved around which separated the material from the relevant footnote. I did a little bit of clean and reorganizing to put things back to near their foot. The article should be back to being fully source now. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinking

I was planning to take this up at User:Kudpung talk page but saw recent activity here so lets talk here instead. I do not agree with the recent removal of some wikilinks, e.g. cofermentation [1], tannin, vintage, winemaking, wine bottle and oak (wine). I will revert a few, but wanted to put a note here since I will do a direct revert. Please explain why the wikilinks above was removed or what policy that states they should not be linked, some of the other that was removed I agree that they where a bit to many. But to argue that a wikilink do not expand on the information is wrong, this is wikipedia and it is OK to link to stubs that will grow. --Stefan ^talk 00:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The cofermentation link led to a dab page. Neither of the linked pages carried any specific mention whatsoever about cofermentation. I may happen to know what cofermentation is, but an average reader will still be left guessing. Thus, unless he is a wine expert, he will not automatically know whether it means the grapes are fermented together in one vat, or whether their fermentation is simply started and stopped simulatenously in separate vats. Therefore, I consider linking to non-existent material does not enhance a reader's experience - it certainly wasted mine just to prove a point. I tend to think from a reader's point of view, but I won't be baited into an edit war over this, so you can have you way.--Kudpung (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start a edit war just build a better encyclopedia, I want to understand how you read the policies when you removed the links you did, none of the examples above fall into any of the categories you stated as examples? even a dab link should not be removed due to any of the below the way i read it? Which of the below states that you should not link if there is no info on the page? I though you linked due to the link word, not the target page. The only one that might be questionable is wine bottle? --Stefan ^talk 03:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Guidelines for overlinking
• Do not link to a page that redirects back to the page the link is on.
• avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words
• always consider providing a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link to another article.
• Guidelines for linking
• relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question.

Thank you for copying exactly what I said. The examples I stated, according to my interpretations of the GL, fall directly within the categories of WP:OVERLINK and how they affect this article. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Please see your user talk page for suggestions and discussion how the guidelines can be more accurately interpreted. I have asked for a second, independent opinion, and I will be quite happy to abide by whatever that might be. --Kudpung (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how tannin, vintage, oak (wine) and winemaking qualify as "irrelevant" to the article. Do you think most English reading really know all the information and details that are in the oak (wine) article? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how linking to a total dead end of a dab page helps anyone at at all. I also fail to understand why the recent trend in using combative tones throughout the encyclopedia has spread to our discussions on improving our wine articles and the experience of our readers. --Kudpung (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The only combative tones are the ones that you are reading into people's words. As a 3rd party, I didn't see anything combative in Stefan's response to you. Pointing out that you are probably mistaken in your interpretation and application of guidelines is not combative. BTW, neither tannin, vintage, oak (wine) nor winemaking are "dead ends of dab pages". They are full fledged articles that are very relevant to the topic of a wine region. So....where is the point of contention? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung, please read e.g. WP:redlink, although not directly related it shows that if e.g. cofermentation did not exists at all, as dab page or otherwise it should still be linked to, since it is a topic that is relevant to Côte-Rôtie_AOC. This to me also states that we should link to dab pages, even though they does not enhance a reader's experience, remeber this is a WIKI which means that the readers is also supposed to contribute and when you saw that dead link your could have added to the page instead of removing the link. Also read WP:LINK#What generally should not be linked, and especially think about what unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, means. And sorry if I used combative tones, that was never my intent, I just tried to help us all build a better wikipedia. --Stefan ^talk 00:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was asked a couple of days ago to give the issue a look - sorry for the delay, and I hope it's still relevant to do so despite Kudpung's later comments. I'm sorry to see long-standing and valuable contributors to WP:WINE disagree. On substance, I essentially agree with Stefan's version; that is, in a wine-related article, it's relevant to link all viticultural and oenological terms (on first appearance), also in case of redlinks or bad stubs. Thus, I agree with Kudpung's delinking of terms like blonde, but not with the oenological terms. BTW, we obviously need an article cofermentation (wine), since the fermentation (wine) article (linked from cofermentation) doesn't seem to mention this phenomenon. (Surely it was widely used for the softening white grape proportion in red wines from e.g. Rioja and Chianti in times gone by?) The only relinking by Stefan that I find possibly unnecessary is wine bottle. Tomas e (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)